Roth & Company, PC Tax Update Blog

Tax Update Blog: Permalink

« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »

Tax Court: LLC and LLLP owner losses don't have to be passive

July 01, 2009

The IRS lost a battle it should never have fought yesterday in Tax Court. The court shot down a bid to treat as "per se" passive losses from limited liability companies or limited liability limited partnerships.

Nebraskans Paul and Alicia Garnett invested in LLCs and LLLPs that operated farming businesses in Iowa. The Garnetts claimed that they "materially participated" in the entities and deducted losses shown on the K-1s from the LLCs and LLLPs. The IRS assessed about $360,000 in deficiencies from these losses from 2000 to 2002, saying that the losses were passive no matter what. "Passive" losses are allowed only to the extent of "passive" income, or when the activity is sold.

The IRS applied Sec. 469(h)(2), which says:

Except as provided in regulations, no interest in a limited partnership as a limited partner shall be treated as an interest with respect to which a taxpayer materially participates.

The taxpayers argued that LLCs and LLLPs are not "limited partners" under these rules, and they are therefore subject to the regular "material participation" rules for determining whether a loss is passive. The Tax Court looked at the state law rules governing these entities to sort it out. The court found that Iowa law gives allows powers to LLC members and LLLP owners beyond those allowed traditional limited partners. They also said limited liability wasn't enough to make an owner a "limited partner" under Sec. 469(h)(2):

Thus, while limited liability was one characteristic of limited partners that Congress considered in the enactment of section 469(h)(2), it clearly was not, as respondent suggests, the sole or even determinative consideration. To the contrary, the more direct and germane consideration was the legislative belief that statutory constraints on a limited partner's ability to participate in the partnership's business justified a presumption that a limited partner generally does not materially participate and made further factual inquiry into the matter unnecessary.

We do not believe that this rationale properly extends to interests in L.L.P.s and L.L.C.s. As previously discussed, members of L.L.P.s and L.L.C.s, unlike limited partners in State law limited partnerships, are not barred by State law from materially participating in the entities' business. Accordingly, it cannot be presumed that they do not materially participate. Rather, it is necessary to examine the facts and circumstances to ascertain the nature and extent of their participation. That factual inquiry is appropriately made, we believe, pursuant to the general tests for material participation under section 469 and the regulations thereunder.

My view: This is a stupid argument for the IRS to make. When Sec. 469(h) was written, LLCs and LLLPs barely existed. The differences between these new entities and the old limited partnerships are profound, and it is common for LLC and LLLP members to work full time in roles analogous to general partners in limited partnerships. The new entities just aren't comparable to limited partnerships.

Just from the standpoint of the IRS, this is an unwise argument to make. If losses from these entities are per se passive, so is income. An IRS "victory" in this case could open up a world of opportunities for entrepreneurs, who would suddenly find they had lots of passive income from their LLCs that they could shelter with traditional tax shelter partnerships.

Yesterday's ruling doesn't close the case; it was a "summary judgment" motion on the 469(h)(2) issue. The IRS might still challenge the losses under the normal "material participation" standards.

Cite: Garnett, 132 T.C. No. 19.

Below: tax law standards for material participation

MATERIAL PARTICIPATION BASICS

The regulations say you achieve "material participation" in non-real estate activities for a tax year if:

-You participate at least 500 hours; or
-You participate at least 100 hours and at least 500 hours in that and other "100 hour" activities; or
-You participate at least 100 hours and more than anybody else, or
-You are the only participant; or
-You materially participated in five of the past ten years )or in any three years for a service activity).

There is also a "facts and circumstances" test, but don't count on it.

A special rule apples to real estate. If you are not a "real estate professional," losses are normally passive no matter what, unless you provide "extraordinary" personal services.

If you are a "real estate" professional," you can apply the normal material participation rules to determine whether you have a passive activity. To be a real estate professional, you have to spend at least half your working hours - not less than 750 hours annually - in "real property development, redevelopment, construction, reconstruction, acquisition, conversion, rental, operation, management, leasing, or brokerage trade."

Tags: .....

      Bookmark: del.icio.usDiggreddit

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rothcpa.com/mt/contages.cgi/810

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Court: LLC and LLLP owner losses don't have to be passive:

» Offsetting LLC Losses from Offsetting LLC Losses ยป Coventry League - Blogentary
Given the challenging economic climate, more businesses are incurring accounting losses. [Read More]

Comments

I have a tax problem, i own a buisness and i also own a subdivision in a LLC, since the housing market is down, i've had to take profitts from my buisness and loan it to my subdivision to keep it a float, $500K now i'm being taxed on the loan as personal profits, even though the money went straight from my buisness to my development, personal taxes are over $200K, any advise, the books arent closed

Post a comment





Email: roth@rothcpa.com  •  Phone: (515) 244-0266
All content © Roth & Company, P.C.  •  Powered by Movable Type  •  Site by Sekimori Design