A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.

Can A Business Start Before Having Revenue?

 

It is one of my least favorite issues: when does a business start?

The reason is that expenses incurred before the start-up date are considered either organizational or start-up expenses and cannot be immediately deducted. The IRS allows a small spot (of $5,000) and expenses over that amount are to be amortized over 15 years.

It used to be five years. The issue was less of a blood sport back then.

For many of us, the start-up date is easy: it is when you open your doors to customers or clients. Let’s say you are a chiropractor. Your start-up date is when the office opens. What if you do not have a patient that day? Same answer: it is the day you open the doors.

Let’s kick it up a notch.

Say you open a restaurant. When is your start date?

The day you have first serve customers, right?

Yes, with a twist. Many restaurants have a soft opening, which is a seating for a limited number of people (think family, friends and media critics) to test service and the kitchen. This might be days or weeks before the actual grand opening – that is, when doors open to the general public.  

Many tax accountants – me included – consider a restaurant’s soft opening to be the start date.

The reason we want an earlier rather than a later date is to start deducting expenses. If you are reaching into your pocket or borrowing money to pay rent, utilities, promotion and staff, you want a tax deduction now. You might consider me to be crazy man Michael were I to talk about deducting over 15 years.

Let’s kick it up another notch. Let’s talk about a web-based business.

Gregg Kellett graduated from college in 2002 and opened a website. He went corporate in 2007, and in 2011 he moved to Bloomberg, a publisher of legal and business information. While there he saw an opportunity to better aggregate and access online demographic, social and economic data. If he could pull it off, he could offer a more user-friendly interface and make a couple of bucks in the process.

So in 2013 he bought a website (vizala.com). He formed a company by the same name. He hired remote computer engineers to develop features he wanted in the website. They finished core work in March 2015 and resolved bugs through September 2015. An example of a “bug” was an interactive table that would not presently correctly in the Firefox browser.

Kellett figured to make money at least four ways:

(1)  Selling advertising space

(2)  Implementing a paywall

(3)  Selling personalized charts and other information

(4)  Licensing data

He did not pursue any of those strategies during 2015.

However, he did deduct approximately $26 grand on his 2015 return.

He also did not earn any revenue until 2019.

Sure enough, the IRS disallowed the $26 grand because Kellett was not in an “active” trade or business. They wanted him to deduct the expenses over (almost) the same period as putting a kid though grade school and then college.

Off to Tax Court.

If we pull back to the general rule – the date of first revenues – this is going to hurt.

But the website was available by September 2015. It wasn’t rocking like Netflix upon release of the 2022 season’s second half of Stranger Things, but it was available.

The Court wanted to know what happened between 2015 and 2019.

Kellett explained that maximizing his long-term profit potential required building trust among users. After that would come the advertisers. He started building trust by promoting the website to over a hundred universities and professional organizations. This was enough work that he hired a marketing professional to assist him. The work paid-off, as about 50% on the institutions added Vizala to their lists of research databases. 

The Court understood what he did. The website was available by September 2015. It was not all it could be as Kellett had plans for its long-term profitability, but that did not gainsay that the website was available. Considering that the business was the website, that meant that the business also started in September 2015. Expenses before that date were startup expenses. Expenses after that date were immediately deductible.

Revenues did not play into the decision, fortunately.

It was the website version of the chiropractor opening his/her office, albeit with no patients on the first day.

Kellett won, but it cost a visit to Tax Court.

Our case this time was Kellett v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-62.

Qualifying As A Real Estate Professional

 

The first thing I thought when I read the opinion was: this must have been a pro se case.

“Pro se”” has a specific meaning in Tax Court: it means that a taxpayer is not represented by a professional. Technically, this is not accurate, as I could accompany someone to Tax Court and they be considered pro se, but the definition works well enough for our discussion.

There is a couple (the Sezonovs) who lived in Ohio. The husband (Christian) owned an HVAC company and ran it as a one-man gang for the tax years under discussion.

In April 2013 they bought rental property in Florida. In November 2013 they bought a second. They were busy managing the properties:

·      They advertised and communicated with prospective renters.

·      They would clean between renters or arrange for someone to do so.

·      They hired contractors for repairs to the second property.

·      They filed a lawsuit against the second condo association over a boat slip that should have been transferred with the property.

One thing they did not do was to keep a contemporaneous log of what they did and when they did it. Mind you, tax law does not require you to write it down immediately, but it does want you to make a record within a reasonable period. The Court tends to be cynical when someone creates the log years after the fact.

The case involves the Sezonovs trying to deduct rental losses. There are two general ways you can coax a deductible real estate rental loss onto your return:

(1) Your income is between a certain range, and you actively participate in the property. The band is between $1 and $150,000 for marrieds, and the Code will allow one to deduct up to $25 grand. The $25 grand evaporates as income climbs from $100 grand to $150 grand.

(2)  One is a real estate professional.

Now, one does not need to be a full-time broker or agent to qualify as a real estate professional for tax purposes. In fact, one can have another job and get there, but it probably won’t be easy.

Here is what the Code wants:

·      More than one-half of a person’s working hours for the year occur in real estate trades or businesses; and

·      That person must rack-up at least 750 hours of work in all real estate trades or businesses.

Generally speaking, much of the litigation in this area has to do with the first requirement. It is difficult (but not impossible) to get to more-than-half if one is working outside the real estate industry itself. It would be near impossible for me to get there as a practicing tax CPA, for example.

One more thing: one person in the marriage must meet both of the above tests. There is no sharing.

The Sezonovs were litigating their 2013 and 2014 tax years.

First order of business: the logs.

Which Francine created in 2019 and 2020.

Here is what Francine produced:

                                     Christian              Francine

2013 hours                        405                      476                

2014 hours                         26                        80                 

Wow.

They never should have gone to Court.

They could not meet one of the first two rules: at least 750 hours.

From everything they did, however, it appears to me that they would have been actively participating in the Florida activities. This is a step down from “materially participating” as a real estate pro, but it is something. Active participation would have qualified them for that $25-grand-but-phases-out tax break if their income was less than $150 grand. The fact that they went to Court tells me that their income was higher than that.

So, they tried to qualify through the second door: as a real estate professional.

They could not do it.

And I have an opinion derived from over three decades in the profession: the Court would not have allowed real estate pro status even if the Sezonovs had cleared the 750-hour requirement.

Why?

Because the Court would have been cynical about a contemporaneous log for 2013 and 2014 created in 2019 and 2020. The Court did not pursue the point because the Sezonovs never got past the first hurdle.

Our case this time was Sezonov v Commissioner. T.C. Memo 2022-40.

Self-Renting a Big Green Egg

Sometimes tax law requires you to witness the torture of the language. Other times it herds you through a sequence of “except for” clauses, almost assuring that some future Court will address which except is taking exception.

And then you have the laughers.

I came across an article titled: Corporation’s self-leasing rental expense deduction denied.”

I was curious. We tax nerds have an exceptionally low threshold for curiosity.

Before reading the article, I anticipated that:

(1)  Something was being deducted

(2)  That something was rent expense

(3)  Something was being self-leased, whatever that means, and

(4)  Whatever it means, the deduction was denied.

Let us spend a little time on (3).

Self-lease (or self-rental) means that you are renting something to yourself or, more likely, to an entity that you own. It took on greater tax significance in 1986 when Congress, frustrated for years with tax shelters, created the passive activity (PAL) rules. The idea was to separate business activities between actually working (active/material participation) and living the Kennedy (passive activity).

It is not a big deal if all the activities are profitable.

It can be a big deal if some of the activities are unprofitable.

Let’s go back to the classic tax shelter. A high-incomer wants to shelter high income with a deductible tax loss.

Our high-incomer buys a partnership interest in a horse farm or oil pipeline or Starbucks. The high-incomer does not work at the farm/pipeline/Starbucks, of course. He or she is an investor.

In the lingo, he/she is passive in the activity.

Contrast that with whatever activity generates the high income. Odds are that he/she works there. We would refer to that as active or material participation.

The 1986 tax act greatly restricted the ability of the high-incomer to use passive losses to offset active/material participation income.

Every now and then, however, standard tax planning is flipped on its head. There are cases where the high-incomer wants more passive income.

In the name of all that is holy, why?

Has to do with passive losses. Let’s say that you had $10,000 in passive losses in 2015. You could not use them to offset other income, so the $10,000 carried over to 2016. Then to 2017. They are gathering dust.

If we could create passive income, we could use those passive losses.

How to create passive income?

Well, let’s say that you own a company.

You rent something to the company.

Let’s rent your car, your office-in-home or your Big Green EGG XXL.

Rent is passive income, right? The tax on our passive income will be zero, as the losses will mop up every dollar of income.

That is the “self-rental” the tax Code is after.

But it also triggers one of those “except for” rules: if the self-rental results in income, the income will not qualify as passive income.

All your effort was for naught. Thank you for playing.

Back to the article I was reading.

There is a doctor. He is the only owner of a medical practice. He used the second story of his house solely for the medical practice. Fair be fair, he had the practice pay him rent for that second floor.

I have no problem with that.

The Tax Court disallowed the corporation a rent deduction.

Whaaat? That makes no sense.

The purpose of the passive/active/material participation rules is not to deny a deduction altogether. The purpose is to delay the use of losses until the right type of income comes around.

What was the Tax Court thinking?

Easy. The doctor never reported the rental income on his personal return.

This case has nothing to do with self-rental rules. The Court simply was not permitting the corporation a deduction for rent that its shareholder failed to report as income.

The case for the home gamers is Christopher C.L. Ng M.D. Inc.

Will Yahoo take Alibaba For A Spin?

I have – on and off – been following the Yahoo and Alibaba story. 

It has to do with a proposed spin of a corporate subsidiary. Unless someone has reason to be there, corporate reorganizations – such as spins - are not the easiest reading.  

To set it up, Yahoo owns approximately 15% of Alibaba Group, which itself is a Chinese internet giant. Yahoo has proposed spinning its Alibaba shares into a separate publicly traded company. Spinning in a tax context means getting it out of Yahoo itself and into the hands of the shareholders. This in turn has caught the IRS’ eye, mostly because Yahoo wants to do this on a tax-free basis.

There is gigantic money here. Yahoo’s stake in Alibaba may be worth around $35 billion. Albeit Yahoo is not intending to spin all its Alibaba stock, it would spin enough to trigger an $8 to $10 billion tax – if its tax advisors do not get it right.

QUESTION: How would you like to be the tax honcho that gives this thing a green light? No pressure …

We have talked about reorganizations before. It is a complicated area of tax law, but they have gained in importance as a means of mitigating the double taxation of corporations.  Proctor & Gamble, for example, uses several flavors of reorganizations on a routine basis. What is different about Yahoo?

In general, the IRS likes to see at least a couple of historically active businesses inside the corporate shell. Perhaps one business makes soap and the other makes baby lotion, and they have for as many years as Carter has liver pills. For whatever reason, the soap business wants to go one way and the baby lotion business another. The IRS sees two historically active businesses before and two afterwards. Comply with some technicalities and the IRS is willing to accept that there exists a business purpose for the reorganization – that is, a purpose other than avoiding the tax man.

Let’s stir the pot. Say that you stuff one of the companies with a lot of investment assets, such as Alibaba stock. How does the IRS feel now?

Well, I suppose that would vary. If the stock were 15% of total assets, I suspect you would not draw a long, piercing stare from the IRS. What if it climbs to 50%, 60%, 70%? We can both anticipate the IRS getting increasingly cynical as those percentages climb.

And that is where Yahoo is going.

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer

Yahoo is proposing to stuff Yahoo Small Business, an existing small line of business, into a subsidiary. Yahoo would then drop the Alibaba stock and spin the resulting subsidiary to its shareholders.  The value of the Alibaba stock would completely dwarf the value of Yahoo Small Business.

But why?

Let’s say the new company will be called Yaboo. Yaboo would be stuffed with so much Alibaba stock that it would essentially be a “tracking” stock for Alibaba. Throw in some market arbitrage and Alibaba may find Yaboo an attractive target for acquisition.

Then again, maybe Yahoo just wants to kick Yahoo Small Business out of the nest so it can learn to fly. On the same plane of reality, I am still available if an NFL team wants to make me an offer.

Generally speaking, tax advisors approach the IRS when they get into these high-stakes situations. They may meet informally in order to gauge IRS sentiment before requesting a private letter ruling, for example. The ruling is “private” in that it is directed to one taxpayer (Yahoo) and its unique facts (Alibaba). Yahoo’s advisors would meet with IRS attorneys to discuss, review and argue. If the IRS agrees with the proposed transaction, then Yahoo would request the ruling. If the IRS disagrees, Yahoo would not. It is unlikely that you or I would do this, as failure to submit a ruling request would be considered invitation to an audit. A company the size of Yahoo is under constant audit, however, so this threat is considerably diminished. 

You know – absolutely know – that Yahoo is going to request a private letter ruling. There is way too much money at stake here.

And then on September 2 the IRS came out with Notice 2015-59, saying that it was stopping its practice of issuing rulings on transactions that are suspiciously similar to the proposed Yahoo spin.

Whoa.

Now what does Yahoo do? Does it rely on an opinion from its law firm without an IRS ruling? Does it retract the spin? Does it adjust the spin so the percentages of the stock and active business are not so skewed?

Remember: just because the IRS says it does not make it so. There is complex law here, and a Court may have to decide.

For a tax geek, this is like the latest installment of Mission Impossible.

How Much Would A Worker Have To Work Before The IRS Believes They Were Really Working?

Can you own and work at a company but have the IRS consider it to be a “passive activity” for tax purposes?

The question seems odd to me, as I have never worked somewhere where I wasn’t unquestionably “materially participating.” There isn’t much choice, given what I do. I would like to someday, though. It’s on my bucket list.

What do these terms mean?

The terms entered the tax Code in 1986, and they were a (mostly successful) effort to battle tax shelters. To trigger the issue one had to have invested in a business activity, and one’s share (whether large or small) wound up on one’s personal tax return. This means – generally – that one is invested in a partnership, LLC or S corporation. One receives a Schedule K-1 for his/her ownership interest, and those numbers are included with one’s other income (a W-2, for example) on the personal return.

Make those numbers negative and you understand the mechanics of a tax shelter.

Congress said that one had to separate those activities into two buckets. The first was a “material participation” bucket, for activities where you actually worked. Those numbers went on your tax return whether they were positive or negative. Congress saw little risk of a tax shelter if one actually worked at the place.

The second was the “passive activity” bucket. Congress put stringent limits on the ability to use negative numbers from this bucket to offset other income. Congress wasn’t going to allow negative numbers from the passive activity bucket to offset positive numbers from one’s actual job.

You can anticipate that the definition of “material participation” was critical.

There are seven tests to qualify as material participation. They are found in Reg. 1.469-5T and are as follows:

·  The taxpayer works 500 hours or more during the year in the activity.

·  The taxpayer does substantially all the work in the activity.

·  The taxpayer works more than 100 hours in the activity during the year and no one else works more than the taxpayer.

·  The activity is a significant participation activity (SPA), and the sum of SPAs in which the taxpayer works 100-500 hours exceeds 500 hours for the year.

·  The taxpayer materially participated in the activity in any 5 of the prior 10 years.

·  The activity is a personal service activity and the taxpayer materially participated in that activity in any 3 prior years.

·  Based on all of the facts and circumstances, the taxpayer participates in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during such year.  However, this test only applies if the taxpayer works at least 100 hours in the activity, no one else works more hours than the taxpayer in the activity, and no one else receives compensation for managing the activity.

The key one is the first – the 500 hour test. That is the workhorse, and the one practitioners prefer to use. The 5-out-of-10 years test allows one to retire, as does the any-3-prior- years test. The SPA test is goofy, and should it be a one-person business, then the substantially-all-the-work test bypasses any reference to hours worked.

Then there is the last one – “facts and circumstances.” This is a fallback, in case one cannot shoehorn into one of the other tests. Tax practice being unpredictable, one would have expected a substantial body of precedence on what comprises “facts and circumstances.” We have had more than 25 years, after all. One would have been wrong, as the IRS prefers to proceed as though this test did not exist.

Now we have the Wade case.

Charles Wade owned stock in two corporations: Thermoplastic Services, Inc. (TSI) and Paragon Plastic Sheeting, Inc. (Paragon). He started these companies in 1980 to address the environmental impact of plastic waste materials. TSI acquired waste from chemical companies and converted it into useable products. Paragon bought raw materials from TSI and used them to make building and construction materials. Sounds green.

In 1994 his son (Ashley) came on board, and eventually wound up managing the companies.

This freed up his dad. Wade could be more involved with the customer relationships and less with the day-to-day stuff. This gave dad (and mom) a chance to move to Florida. He could still call and schmooze customers from Florida. I too would like the opportunity to work from Florida, especially as we get closer to winter.

Fast forward another fourteen years, and in 2008 the companies were struggling for their financial lives. Dad decided to step it up. He did the following:

·        Made 273 phone calls to the plant in 2008

·        Travelled to the plant three times to motivate and reassure employees that the companies would continue

·        Intensified his R&D efforts, resulting in

o   A new technique for fireproofing polyethylene partitions

o   A new method for treating plastics to destroy common viruses and bacteria on contact

·        Guaranteed a new line of credit

Wow! This man did everything short of stepping into a phone booth and coming out as Superman.

But 2008 was a tough year. His losses from the companies (including one other, which need not concern us here) was $3.8 million.

This created a net operating loss (NOL) on his personal return. Truthfully, a negative $3.8 million would create an NOL for pretty much all of us. He did what we would do: he carried back the NOL as allowed, which is to the prior two years. Any amount not used there can be carried forward 20 years. Why would he do that?

To obtain a refund of the taxes he paid in 2006 and 2007, that’s why.

Of course, the IRS did not like this at all. They argued that TSI and Paragon were passive activities to Wade, and there is no NOL from passive losses. In fact, there is no “loss” from passive losses, as the best passive activities can do (generally) is get to zero.

And both parties are bound for Tax Court.

The Court looks and notes that Wade has a couple of arguments. The first is that he spent more than 500 hours working at TSI and Paragon.

Now, this can be messy to prove, unless one is actually in the building every day. Time sheets or records would be great. This is an area where keeping good records is key.

The Court continued. Wade also argued that he worked on a “regular, continuous and substantial basis” in 2008. This is the last test from Reg. 1.469-5T, and is the one the IRS likes to ignore.

The Court decided it liked that one. Maybe it did not want to go through time records, which is understandable. 

It looked at the facts and said “duh!” to the IRS. Wade easily spent more than 100 hours just calling the plant (100 hours is the minimum under the facts-and-circumstances test). He developed new technology, called every day, visited the facilities several times, secured financing. Good grief IRS, what more did you want the guy to do?

The Court decided for Wade, noting:

TSI and Paragon are complex businesses that Mr. Wade built from the ground up and in which he continued to play a vital role. He was not merely a detached investor, as has often been the case when we have found that a taxpayer did not materially participate.”

So Wade won. The IRS would have to issue him refunds from his NOL carryback.

But the IRS made their point: they remained skeptical of anyone who wants to prove material participation by means of facts and circumstances.

Of course, a $3.8 million dollar NOL carryback undoubtedly did a lot to spotlight that facts-and-circumstances claim.