Is A Zero-Return Partnership A Valid Tax Filing?

 

I remember when they were called Chief Counsel Advices. IRS employees – think revenue agents or officers in the field – would reach out to their employer – the IRS – for guidance on an issue.

I am looking at something called a Chief Counsel Email.

Everything changes.

It caught my eye because I was talking with a CPA last week on the very same issue.

And the IRS position is initially disturbing.

Let’s go over this.

A revenue agent (commonly called an auditor) wanted to know if an initial partnership return showing partner information but zeros for activity would constitute a valid tax return.

COMMENT: I have seen this situation many times, including last week. Someone obtains a federal EIN, putting the entity on the IRS radar. The entity then goes on to do … nothing. It never starts or starts a year or two later. Meanwhile the entity is on the IRS Christmas card list. Fail to file a return and the IRS may send a letter asking why you did not file. In response, practitioners usually file an initial return but show zeros as activity because… well because there has been no activity.

Here is the Email:

We agree with the RA’s memo that the initial return showing ownership information, but containing all 0s would most likely be considered invalid under application of the Beard test.

Not good.

To be fair, however, I do not think that it is difficult to work with this Email.

Let’s first talk about Beard.

Beard was a tax protestor.

He found himself in Tax Court over his 1981 return. He received a Form W-2, which he reported on the form 1040. He then inserted a line he described as “Non-taxable receipts” and subtracted his W-2. The result was that he owed – according to him – no taxes and was entitled to a full refund of his withholding.

The IRS wanted tax, of course, and also wanted penalties for failure to file a return. He filed something, but tampering with the forms voided the filing.

Beard responded that he obviously filed a return. The IRS was out of line saying that he had not.

The issue before the Court was: what is a tax return?

The Court presented a four-part test:

1. Does it purport to be a tax return?
2. Is it signed under penalties of perjury?
3. Does it include enough information to calculate a tax?
4. Does it represent an honest effort to satisfy the tax laws?

Beard – a protestor – missed the third test by altering the form.

Here was the Court on the fourth test:

The tampered form here is a conspicuous protest against the payment of tax, intended to deceive respondent’s return-processing personnel into refunding the withheld tax. Since such intentional tampering could go undetected in computer processing, respondent was forced to develop and institute special procedures for handling such submissions. The critical requirement that there must be an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the Federal income tax law is clearly not met."

Back to our Email.

Numerous tax court decisions have found that a return (typically a 1040) containing all zeros, even if filed on an official IRS form, does not constitute a valid tax return.”

True, but …

However, these are all in the tax protestor context and other cases have held that a zero return may be valid if there is reason to believe that it is an accurate reflection of the taxpayer’s activity.”

Got it.

I will start including a schedule or attachment to the partnership tax return stating the following:

XXX Partnership/LLLC was formed on XX/XX/XX and no business operations occurred during its initial tax year ending XX/XX/20XX.”

Easy.

But it is a trap for a non-tax specialist.

This time we discussed CCA 2026030612260600 a/k/a Chief Counsel Email 202634014.

 

Deducting “Tax Insurance” Premiums

 There is an insurance type that I have never worked with professionally: tax liability insurance.

It is what it sounds like: you are purchasing an insurance policy for unwanted tax liabilities.

It makes sense in the area of Fortune 500 mergers and acquisitions. Those deals are enormous, involving earth-shaking money and a potentially disastrous tax riptide if something goes awry. What if one the parties is undergoing a substantial and potentially expensive tax examination? What if the IRS refuses to provide advance guidance on the transaction? There is a key feature to this type of insurance: one is generally insuring a specific transaction or limited number of transactions. It is less common to insure an entire tax return.  

My practice, on the other hand, has involved entrepreneurial wealth – not institutional money - for almost my entire career. On occasion we have seen an entrepreneur take his/her company public, but that has been the exception. Tax liability insurance is not a common arrow in my quiver. For my clients, representation and warranty insurance can be sufficient for any mergers and acquisitions, especially if combined with an escrow.

Treasury has been concerned about these tax liability policies, and at one time thought of requiring their mandatory disclosure as “reportable” transactions. Treasury was understandably concerned about their use with tax shelter activities. The problem is that many routine and legitimate business transactions are also insured, and requiring mandatory disclosure could have a chilling effect on the pricing of the policies, if not their very existence. For those reasons Treasury never imposed mandatory disclosure.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum involving tax liability insurance.

What is a Memorandum?

Think of them as legal position papers for internal IRS use. They explain high-level IRS thinking on selected issues.

The IRS was looking at the deductibility by a partnership of tax insurance premiums. The partnership was insuring a charitable contribution.

I immediately considered this odd. Who insures a charitable contribution?

Except …

We have talked about a type of contribution that has gathered recent IRS attention: the conservation easement.

The conservation easement started-off with good intentions. Think of someone owning land on the outskirts of an ever-expanding city. Perhaps that person would like to see that land preserved – for their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on – and not bulldozed, paved and developed for the next interchangeable strip of gourmet hamburger or burrito restaurants. That person might donate development rights to a charitable organization which will outlive him and never permit such development. That right is referred to as an easement, and the transfer of the easement (if properly structured) generates a charitable tax deduction.

There are folks out there who have taken this idea and stretched it beyond recognition. Someone buys land in Tennessee for $10 million, donates a development and scenic easement and deducts $40 million as a charitable deduction. Promoters then ratcheted this strategy by forming partnerships, having the partners contribute $10 million to purchase land, and then allocating $40 million among them as a charitable deduction. The partners probably never even saw the land. Their sole interest was getting a four-for-one tax deduction.

The IRS considers many of these deals to be tax shelters.

I agree with the IRS.

Back to the Memorandum.

The IRS began its analysis with Section 162, which is the Code section for the vast majority of business deductions on a tax return. Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses directly connected with or pertaining to a taxpayer’s trade or business.

Lots of buzz words in there to trip one up.

You my recall that a partnership does not pay federal tax. Instead, its numbers are chopped up and allocated to the partners who pay tax on their personal returns.

To a tax nerd, that beggars the question of whether the Section 162 buzz words apply at the partnership level (as it does not pay federal tax) or the partner level (who do pay federal tax).

There is a tax case on this point (Brannen). The test is at the partnership level.

The IRS reasoned:

·      The tax insurance premiums must be related to the trade or business, tested at the partnership level.

·      The insurance reimburses for federal income tax.

·      Federal income tax itself is not deductible.

·      Deducting a premium for insurance on something which itself is not deductible does not make sense.

There was also an alternate (but related argument) which we will not go into here.

I follow the reasoning, but I am unpersuaded by it.

·      I see a partnership transaction: a contribution.

·      The partnership purchased a policy for possible consequences from that transaction.

·      That – to me - is the tie-in to the partnership’s trade or business.

·      The premium would be deductible under Section 162.

I would continue the reasoning further.

·      What if the partnership collected on the policy? Would the insurance proceeds be taxable or nontaxable?

o  I would say that if the premiums were deductible on the way out then the proceeds would be taxable on the way in.

o  The effect – if one collected – would be income far in excess of the deductible premium. There would be no further offset, as the federal tax paid with the insurance proceeds is not deductible.

o  Considering that premiums normally run 10 to 20 cents-on-the-dollar for this insurance, I anticipate that the net tax effect of actually collecting on a policy would have a discouraging impact on purchasing a policy in the first place.

The IRS however went in a different direction.

Which is why I am thinking that – albeit uncommented on in the Memorandum – the IRS was reviewing a conservation easement that had reached too far. The IRS was hammering because it has lost patience with these transactions.