Partnership Audits And BBA Graffiti

 

I am reading two amicus briefs filed with the Tax Court concerning a partnership audit.

I see that the IRS wants approximately $84 million in tax and $17 million in penalties.

Let’s talk about partnership audits this time. The issue here is caused by the IRS audit process itself.

Before 1982 the IRS would audit partnerships and – if there were adjustments – would also have to audit the partners separately. While not an issue with small partnerships, it was a significant issue with larger partnerships. Take a partnership with headquarters in Atlanta, for example. The partnership audit team might come from Georgia, but the partner audits might require IRS personnel from other states.  

Enter new rules with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1982. The partnership would designate a representative to deal with the IRS. There was one audit to bind the partnership and partners, a single judicial review of that audit and a unified limitations period for all. Just the presence of the partnership representative (tax matters partner or “TMP”) was enormous, as this required only one audit team. The IRS did not need to chase the partners for approval. The day to day was also streamlined, as the IRS did not need to notify any non-TMPs of ongoing audit activities.

But while the partnership was binding the partners, the IRS still had to coordinate the amended partner returns. As partnerships (and now LLCs) became larger and more popular, this became an increasingly formidable task.

Knowing this, what would you change to make partnership audits easier?

I would have the partnership itself pay any additional tax resulting from the audit. The partners could settle up as they wish, but the IRS would have moved on.

For the most part, that is the new system - the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) centralized audit regime - effective after December 31, 2017.

There are limited exceptions to the BBA regime. For example, a partnership can opt-out of BBA if it has less than 100 partners and every partner is an individual, the estate of an individual, a C or an S corporation. This seems a large exception, but is not. For example, a trust - even a grantor trust - will disallow an opt-out. A disregarded entity (almost every Schedule C is a disregarded entity these days) will also disallow an opt-out.

Fail to opt-out and you are working under BBA rules.

COMMENT: Even if you are in BBA, you can still elect to have the partners rather than the partnership pay tax on any adjustments. This is called a “push-out” election. Mind you, you are still in BBA, but you are electing to use an escape hatch.

BTW the above means that we have two audit regimes (BBA and non-BBA) functioning simultaneously out there. A partnership tax practitioner has to know and be able to work with both.

We will discuss BBA audits only from this point on.

There is an issue with the partnership paying tax on any audit adjustments.

Here is an example:

• You incorrectly reported a $2,000 asset as being placed in service by 12/31/XX.
• This resulted in an incorrect depreciation deduction of $500.
• Self-employment income was understated by $500.
• Qualified Business Income was understated by $500.
• QBI unadjusted asset basis after acquisition was overstated by $2,000.
• You inadvertently understated ending recourse liabilities by $400.

In the old days, the accounting would be straightforward. Say you had two 50:50 partners. The accountant would go back to the original tax returns, substitute the amended numbers for the original numbers and recalculate the tax. The accountant would do this for each partner, and the effect of the audit was the sum of the two changes in final tax.

Intuitive.

However, BBA does not have a tax return like the above. BBA works off the partnership return, which is an information return and does not separately calculate taxable income or arrive at a final tax.

Let’s look at our simple example. What is the change in BBA income from the above?

• $500
• $500 + $2,000
• $500 + $2,000 + $400
• $500 + $2,000 + $400 + ($500 times 20%)
• Something else?

You see the problem: the audit adjustments are divorced from a tax return. You can talk your self into knots over what to include and what to exclude.

So, the BBA created the concept of an Imputed Underpayment (IU). Think of it as a subtotal to which we will apply a tax rate.

Start by separating the adjustments into customary tax pools; income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit.

BBA adds one more pool: non-income items. This pool is the genesis of our problems.

Next separate your adjustments between positive (increase taxable income) and negative adjustments.

Positive adjustments are always included. Negative adjustments are allowed when both the positive and negative adjustments would be reported on the same line of a Schedule K-1. The effect, of course, is to leave many a negative adjustment on the table.

Let’s next look at Reg 301.6225-1(d)(2)(iii):

Got it: gobbledygook.

The hook here is that the customary tax pools (income, gain, deduction, loss, credit) can have both positive and negative sides.

The new BBA pool however – the non-income item – is always positive. The IRS arrives at this conclusion by looking at (d)(2)(ii) above. Since it does not subtract from income, the non-income item is not a negative adjustment. Since it is not negative, (d)(iii) means it must be positive.

Once we are done with positive and negatives, we crunch everything together to arrive at a sum called the Imputed Underpayment (“IU”).

We multiply the IU by the maximum tax rate to arrive at tax due from the BBA audit.

You can see the possible danger from non-income items. Land in this pool – voluntarily or involuntarily – and you can be in trouble. Items in the pool might be indirectly used in calculating tax (say QBI UBIA, for example), but not be directly involved in any tax calculation. You are still paying BBA tax on the pool, however.

Seems to me that someone who could put you in this pool potentially has the power to bankrupt you.

With the above as background, let’s briefly look at the Site Solar Fedok Fund III LLC case.

Site Solar is an Oklahoma partnership that owns, operates, and leases mobile solar generators. It reported a loss of approximately $68 million on its 2018 tax return. It also claimed energy credits on the solar equipment.

The IRS audited the 2018 tax return. It determined that approximately $80 million in depreciable assets were not actually placed in service by December 31, 2018. The IRS reduced depreciation by approximately $63 million. Since assets were not placed in service, the IRS also reduced the solar energy credit by approximately $24 million.

Stopping there and being very liberal with the numbers, we might say that a tentative IU is $104 million ($80 million plus $24 million).

The IRS calculated the IU to be $227 million.

Which translated into tax of approximately $84 million and penalties of $17 million.

How did we get from $104 million to $227 million?

Beats me.

Granted, there are rules to avoid double-counting, more specifically the “subsume rule” of Reg 301.6225-1(b)(4):

COMMENT: The subsume rule is far from perfect. Say for example that the IRS reclassifies an ordinary loss to a capital loss. The ordinary loss is a positive adjustment. The capital loss is a negative adjustment. They will not offset, as they appear on different lines of Schedule K-1. The partnership can wind up with tax due when its taxable income did not change a jot.

Treasury has explicitly stated that an IU is not intended to be the amount of tax that the partners would have owed. It instead is an entity-level calculation, disregarding whether any adjustments would have resulted in an actual tax liability to an actual partner.

Huh?

Maybe we need to regard that last point a bit more, folks. This otherwise is just scribbling numbers on a wall – BBA graffiti if you will.

I understand how this ended up in Court.

The taxpayer had no choice.

Our case this time was Site Solar Fedok Fund III, LLC v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court Docket 19733-23.

Faxing A Return To The IRS

We recently prepared a couple of back California tax returns for a client.

The client had an accounting person who lived in California – at least on-and-off -for part of one year. The client itself is located in Tennessee and had little to do with California other than perhaps shipping product into the state. It is long-standing tax doctrine that having an employee in a state can subject a company to that state’s income tax, so I agreed that the client had to file for one year.

The second year was triggered by a one-off Form 1099 issued by someone in Los Angeles. The dollar amount was inconsequential, and I am still at a loss how California obtained this 1099 and why they burned the energy to trace it back to Tennessee. I am not convinced the client sold anything into California that second year. One could sell into Texas, for example, but have the check issued by corporate in Los Angeles.

The client did not care about the details. Just get California off their back.

California requested that we fax the returns to a unit rather than sending them through the regular system

And therein can exist a tax trap.

Let’s talk about it.

Seaview Trading LLC got itself into Tax Court for transacting in a tax shelter. The tax-gentle term is “listed transaction,” but you and I would just call it a shelter. At issue was a $35 million tax deduction, so we are talking big bucks.

The transaction happened in 2001.  The examination started in 2005. On July 27, 2005 the IRS sent Seaview a letter stating that it had never received its 2001 return.

Oh, oh.

This was a partnership, and for the year we are talking about there existed rather arcane audit rules. We will not need to get into the weeds about these rules, other than to say that failing to file a return was bad news for Seaview.

In 2005 Seaview’s accountant faxed a copy of the 2001 tax return to the IRS agent, stating that the return had been timely filed and that Seaview was providing a copy of what it had filed in 2002. He also included a certified mail receipt for the return.

The IRS maintained its position that it had never received the 2001 return. In 2010 the IRS issued its $35 million disallowance.

Fast forward to the Tax Court.

$35 million will do that.

The Court decided to review the case in two steps:

(1)  Did faxing the return to the agent in 2005 constitute “filing” the return?

(2)  If not, does the certified mail receipt constitute evidence of timely filing?

Personally, I would have reversed the order, as I consider certified mailing to be presumptive evidence of timely filing. That is why accountants recommend certified mail. It is less of an issue these days with electronic filing, but every now and then one may decide – or be required – to paper file. In that situation I would still recommend that one use certified mail.

The Court held that faxing the return to the agent did not constitute the filing of a return.

The tax literature observed and commented that faxing does not equal filing.

But there is a subtlety here: Seaview’s accountant indicated that he was supplying the agent a copy of a timely-filed 2001 return. By calling it a copy, the accountant was saying – at least indirectly – that the agent did not need to submit the return for regular processing. That said, it would be unfair for Seaview to later reverse course and argue that it intended for the agent to submit the return for processing.

The IRS won this round.

Now they go to round two: does the certified mail receipt provide Seaview with presumptive proof of timely mailing?

Seaview presents issues that we do not have with our client. We are not playing with listed transactions or obscure audit rules. California just wants its $800 minimum fee for a couple of years. They do not really care if our client actually owes. They want money.

Our administrative staff tried to fax the returns this past Friday but had problems with the fax number. I called the unit in California to explain the issue and discuss alternatives, but I never got to speak with an actual human being. I will try again (at least briefly; I have other things to do) on Monday. If California blows me off again, we will mail the returns.

I fear however that mailing the returns to general processing will cause issues, as the unit will probably issue some apocalyptic deathnote before gen pop routes the returns back to them. We will mail the returns to the specific unit and cross our fingers that not everyone there is “busy serving other customers.”

How I wish I had one of those jobs.

BTW, you can bet we will certify the mail.