Tag Archives: partnership tax

A Little Clarity for Non-U.S. Persons Selling Partnership Interests

A Spanish translation of this post appears below. La traducción al español de este artículo aparece a continuación.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided clarity to a question of how to treat gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a partnership interest held by a foreign person. The IRS, through Revenue Ruling 91-32, previously provided that “the gain realized by a foreign partner upon disposing of its interest in a U.S. partnership should be analyzed asset by asset and, to the extent any such asset would give rise to effectively connected income, the departing partner’s pro rata share of such gain should be treated as effectively connected income.” The Tax Court disagreed with the findings of Revenue Ruling 91-32 in Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and instead held that income, gain, or loss from the sale or exchange of a U.S. partnership interest by a foreign person will only be attributable to a U.S. office, and thus taxed as effectively connected income, if the U.S. office is a material factor in the production of such income, gain, or loss in the ordinary course of business of that U.S. office.

Rather than waiting for courts to come to a consensus as to how to treat gain or loss from a foreign person’s sale of a partnership interest, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act amended the previous tax law and took the position of Revenue Ruling 91-32. Now if a partnership has a U.S. office and a foreign person sells an interest in such a partnership, then an asset-by-asset analysis will need to be conducted to determine how much of the gain or loss from such a sale will be subject to U.S. taxes.

For more information regarding the Tax Act, please see our recent related blog posts linked below:

Jamie E. Koepsel
(941) 552-2562

Un poco de claridad para personas no estadounidenses que ofrecen a la venta su participación en una sociedad americana (también conocida como “U.S. Partnership”)

La ley de recortes fiscales y empleos de 2017, conocida como el “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” dió claridad a la cuestión de cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas de capital generadas después de la venta o intercambio de capital de una sociedad americana (“U.S. partnership”) en poder de una persona no estadounidense.

El IRS (Servicio de Impuestos Internos), a través de la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32, sostenía que las ganancias generadas por un socio extranjero al vender o transferir su parte en una sociedad americana debían ser analizadas activo por activo y, en la medida en que las ganancias de cualquier activo estuviesen vinculadas a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos, las ganancias de dicho socio (medidas en proporción a su participación en la sociedad) debían ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados a una actividad realizada en los Estados Unidos.

El tribunal de impuestos no estuvo de acuerdo con la forma en que la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32 fue interpretada en el caso de Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. El tribunal sostuvo que los ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas generadas en la venta o intercambio de la participación de una sociedad americana por una persona extranjera debían ser atribuibles solamente a una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y ser tratadas como ingresos efectivamente vinculados, solamente si la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos era indispensable para la producción de dichos ingresos, ganancias, o pérdidas en el curso ordinario de los negocios de la oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos.

En lugar de esperar a que los tribunales llegaran a un consenso en cuanto a cómo tratar las ganancias o pérdidas generadas en la venta de capital de una sociedad en propiedad de una persona extranjera, la reforma fiscal de 2017 modificó la ley tributaria anterior y asumió la regla establecida por la Resolución de Impuestos 91-32. Ahora, si una sociedad tiene una oficina ubicada en los Estados Unidos y una persona extranjera vende su participación en tal sociedad, un análisis de cada activo debe ser conducido para determinar el monto de las ganancias o pérdidas sujetas a impuestos en los Estados Unidos.

Traducción por Juliana Ferro, Abogada

New Regulations End Dual Partner/Employee Planning Technique

Temporary and proposed regulations issued May 3, 2016, reaffirm Treasury’s position that an individual cannot be both an employee and a partner of the same tax partnership, and end the ability of tax planners to use a disregarded entity in conjunction with a tax partnership to change an individual’s self-employment tax treatment. Previously, tax planners would use the rule that disregarded entities are treated as corporations for employment tax purposes to setup a structure whereby a tax partnership owned a disregarded entity with the partners treated as employees of the disregarded entity and not the tax partnership.  The primarily motivation for such structures was to permit the partners to be employees and enable Form W-2 withholding instead of having the partners pay self-employment tax and make estimated tax payments.  The new regulations provide that the rule that a disregarded entity is treated as a corporation for employment tax purposes does not apply to the self-employment tax treatment of individuals who are partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.  A link to the new regulations is here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-05-04/pdf/2016-10383.pdf

Michael J. Wilson

Legislation Creates Default Rule: All Partnerships to be Audited at Entity Level

On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314) which, among other things, imposes a new audit regime on tax partnerships beginning in 2018. Under the new regime, unless a partnership is eligible to elect out and does so timely, IRS can now collect tax due on partnership adjustments at the entity level, which takes a fundamental premise of partnership taxation – that the entity pays no tax – and turns it on its head. The new regime has many significant impacts. Not the least of which is that the IRS can send a bill for a prior year tax underpayment to the partnership itself, and therefore the current year partners would bear this burden. Our initial analysis is that tax partnerships that are eligible will likely want to elect out of the new regime. A link to the full Act (Title XI – starting on page 42 – is the relevant portion of the Act) is here: www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1314/BILLS-114hr1314enr.pdf

Michael J. Wilson