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
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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.
New Partnership Audit Rules: the IRS’s Problem Is Now A Partnership Problem
Author: James F. McDonough
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
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.
