Déjà Vu All Over Again: New Proposed Disguised Sale Regulations
In their Taxation column, Ezra Dyckman and Charles S. Nelson discuss proposed Treasury Department regulations that would once again permit transactions in which a partner can contribute property to a partnership and receive a tax-free distribution of money.
August 21, 2018 at 02:30 PM
6 minute read
In October 2016, the Treasury Department issued regulations that significantly restricted the ways in which a partner can contribute property to a partnership and receive a tax-free distribution of money. In June 2018, proposed regulations were issued that would once again permit some of those transactions.
Background
In general, a contribution of property to a partnership is tax-free, and a distribution of money from a partnership to a partner is only taxable to the extent it exceeds the partner's basis in its partnership interest. However, if a partner contributes property to a partnership and the partnership distributes money to the partner within two years of the contribution, the transaction is generally treated as a disguised sale of property by the partner to the partnership, which is taxable to the partner.
Under an exception to the disguised sale rules, if a partnership borrows money and distributes it to a partner, a portion of the money distributed to the partner corresponding to the partner's share of the partnership's liability is not treated as part of a disguised sale, and therefore can be received by the partner tax-free.
Prior to October 2016, a partner's share of a partnership recourse liability for this purpose was equal to the amount (if any) for which the partner bore the economic risk of loss. A partner's share of a nonrecourse liability was equal to his share of “excess nonrecourse liabilities” under Internal Revenue Code Section 752, which generally was equal to the partner's share of the partnership's profits. Therefore, if a partner guaranteed a partnership liability, he would have been allocated the entire amount of the liability.
In October 2016, the Treasury Department issued temporary regulations (Temp. Treas. Reg. §1.707-5T), which provided that for purposes of the disguised sale rules, a partner's share of any liability, whether recourse or nonrecourse, is equal to the partner's share of partnership profits. However, if one partner bore the economic risk of loss with respect to a liability, the other partners in the partnership had no share of that liability. For example if a partner had a 25 percent interest in a partnership and guaranteed a liability of that partnership, the partner would be allocated 25 percent of the partnership liability for disguised sale purposes. The remaining 75 percent of the liability would be allocated to no one for disguised sale purposes. This rule prompted outrage among tax practitioners (and their clients), both because a partner bearing the economic risk of loss had no impact on the amount of the liability allocated to the partner for disguised sale purposes, and due to the radical new concept that a portion of the debt could not be allocated to anyone for disguised sale purposes. Moreover, this rule was issued as a temporary regulation rather than as a proposed regulation, which did not afford the public the opportunity to comment on it before it became effective. Also in October 2016, the Treasury Department issued regulations addressing the allocation of partnership nonrecourse liabilities for disguised sale purposes and the treatment of bottom-dollar guarantees under Section 752.
New Proposed Regulations
On June 19, 2018, the Treasury Department issued new proposed regulations (Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.707-5). The proposed regulations would remove the temporary regulations issued in October 2016 with respect to recourse liabilities and reinstate the final regulations that were in place prior to October 2016. Thus, under the proposed regulations, a partner's share of a recourse liability for purposes of the disguised sale rules is equal to the amount for which he bears the economic risk of loss. Therefore, if a partner guaranteed the entire amount of a partnership liability, the partner would be allocated the full amount of that liability for purposes of the disguised sale rules. The proposed regulations would not change the October 2016 regulations that relate to the allocation of nonrecourse liabilities or to the treatment of bottom-dollar guarantees.
Although the proposed regulations are not effective until finalized, the preamble to the proposed regulations indicates that taxpayers may apply the new rules for any transaction in which all transfers occur after Jan. 3, 2017, which effectively means that the October 2016 temporary regulations may be ignored.
Analysis
To illustrate these rules, assume that a partner contributes unencumbered property to a partnership in exchange for a 25 percent interest in the partnership. Immediately thereafter, the partnership borrows $100, which is guaranteed by the contributing partner. The partnership then distributes the $100 of loan proceeds to the contributing partner. Under the temporary regulations issued in 2016, the partner would be allocated $25 of the liability, and the remaining $75 of the liability would not be allocated to any partner. Upon the distribution of the $100 to the contributing partner, he would have an amount realized of $75 from a disguised sale of an interest in the contributed property to the partnership.
In contrast, under both the proposed regulations and pre-2016 law, the contributing partner would be allocated all $100 of the liability because he bears the entire risk of loss with respect to the liability. The contributing partner could therefore receive the entire $100 amount from the partnership tax-free under the “debt-financed distribution” exception to the disguised sale rules.
Because the October 2016 regulations were issued as temporary regulations rather than as proposed regulations, the public was not given a chance to provide comments to them before they became effective. In the preamble to the new proposed regulations, the Treasury Department did not state that it had reconsidered the substantive rule of the 2016 temporary regulations, but rather that it agreed with commentators that such a change should be studied systematically. Thus, it remains to be seen whether these rules will be changed again. For now, though, the proposed regulations are good news for taxpayers in that they will once again open the door to tax planning transactions that were previously restricted.
Ezra Dyckman is a partner at Roberts & Holland. Charles S. Nelson is an associate at the firm.
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
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