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.

Losing A Tax Exemption

The taxation of tax-exempts can sometimes be tricky.

The reason is that a tax-exempt can – depending on the facts – owe income tax. This type of income is referred to as unrelated business income, and the tax issue developed because Congress did not want tax-exempts to mimic the activities of for-profit companies while not paying tax.

There are certain areas – such as permitting third-party use of membership data – that can trigger the unrelated business tax.

Another would be the rental of real estate with associated indebtedness.

The organization will owe tax on these activities.

Then there is the worst-case scenario: the revocation of the tax-exempt status itself. Think Elon Musk putting Tesla in a 501(c)(3) – the IRS is going to blow-up that arrangement.

Let’s discuss a recent case that walked the revocation ledge.

There is an organization in New York. It is open to seniors from age 55 to 90. To become a member a senior must submit an application and application fee. 

It appears to have four principal activities:

·      To provide burial benefits for members and assistance to surviving family

·      To provide information and referrals to seniors regarding burial as well as general concerns

·      To provide organized activities for senior citizens

·      To provide annual scholarships to needy, promising students

The organization charges fees as follows:

·      An application fee of $100 for seniors age 55 to 70

·      An application fee of $150 for seniors age 71 to 90

·      A $30 annual fee

·      A $10 fee every time a member dies

It doesn’t appear unreasonable to me.

There was an interesting and heartwarming twist to their activities: the organization would pay a separate amount directly to the family of a deceased member, pursuant to a Korean tradition. The organization paid, for example, $11 thousand directly to a funeral home and over $3,200 to the family of a deceased member.

Since we are talking about them, you know that the organization went to audit.

The IRS wanted to revoke their tax-exempt status.

Why?

The is an over-arching requirement that a tax-exempt be operated “exclusively” for an exempt purpose. There is some latitude in the “exclusive” requirement, otherwise de minimis and silly stuff could cost an organization its exemption.

Still, what did the IRS see here?

The first is that benefits were available only to members.

COMMENT: The organization had expressed an intent to include nonmembers, but as of the audit year that goal remained aspirational.

OBSERVATION: The organization had told the IRS of its intent to include nonmembers when it requested exempt status. Upon audit and failure to find nonmember benefits, the IRS argued that the organization had failed to operate in the manner it had previously represented to the IRS. 

Second is that a member was required to pay dues. In fact, if a member failed to pay dues for 90 days after receiving written notice, the organization could terminate the membership and – with it – the requirement to pay any burial benefits.

COMMENT: Sounds a bit like an insurance company, doesn’t it?

Third is that the amount of burial benefits was based on the number of years the deceased had been a member. A member of 12 years would receive more than a member of 5 years.

The IRS brought big heat. The organization was organized in 1996, applied for exempt status in 1998 and was being audited for 2013.

OK, a reasonable number of years had passed since receiving exempt status.

The organization had reported over $2.3 million in revenues on their Form 990.

Sounds to me like they were doing well.

In 2008 they bought a condominium, paying over $800 grand.

Oh, oh.

You can begin to understand where the IRS was coming from. As operated, the organization was looking like a small insurance company. It was accumulating a bank balance; it had bought real estate. The IRS wanted to see obvious charitable activities. If the organization could swing $800 grand on a condo, then they could shake loose a few dollars and waive dues for someone who was broke. They were operating dangerously close to a private club. That is fine, but do not ask for (c)(3) status.

The organization had a remaining argument: there was no diversion of earnings or money. There couldn’t be, as no benefits occurred until someone passed away.

The Court however separated this argument into two parts:

(1)  The earnings and assets of the organization cannot inure (that is, return to) to a member.

The organization successfully argued this point.

(2)  There must be no private benefit.

This makes more sense if one flips the wording: there must be a public benefit. The Court did not see a public benefit, as the organization was not providing benefits to nonmembers or allowing for reduction or abatement of dues for financial need. Not seeing a public benefit, the Court saw a private benefit.

The organization was operating in a manner too close to a for-profit business, and it lost its tax-exempt status.

I get the technical issues, but I do not agree as vigorously as the Court that there was that much private benefit here. Society has an interest in promoting the causes and issues of senior citizens, and the organization – in its own way – was helping. By aiding seniors with government agencies, it was reducing the strain on social services. By assisting seniors with planning and paying for funeral services, it was reducing costs otherwise defaulting to the municipality.

One would have preferred a warning, an opportunity for the organization to right its course, so to speak. What happened instead was akin to burning down the bridge.  

Still, that is how issues in this area go: one is working on a spectrum. The advisor has to judge whether one is on the safe or the non-safe side of the spectrum.

The Court decided the organization had wandered too far to the non-safe side.

Our case this time was The Korean-American Senior Mutual Association v Commissioner.

LLC Members and W-2s

There is a tax issue that has dogged advisors for years. 

It has to do with limited liability companies.

What sets it up is tax law from general partnerships.

A general partnership is the Gunsmoke of partnerships. The “general” does not means everybody participates. It does mean that everyone is liable if the partnership gets sued.

Whoa. There is clearly a huge downside here.

Which leads us to limited partnerships. Here only a general partner takes on that liability thing. A limited partner put his/her capital account at risk, but nothing more. Forget about signing on that bank debt.

Let’s present the granddaddy of self-employment tax law:

·        A general partner is considered self-employed and pays self-employment tax on his/her distributable income, irrespective of his/her own involvement in the trade or business.

·        A limited partner is presumed to not be involved in the trade or business of the partnership; therefore, he/she does not pay self-employment (SE)  tax on his/her distributable income.

o   There is an exception for “guaranteed payments, which is akin to a salary. Those are subject to SE tax.

How can we differentiate a general partner from a limited partner?

It is that liability thing. The entity is likely being formed under state “limited partnership” law rather than “general partnership” law. In addition, the partnership agreement will normally include a section specifying in detail that the generals run the show and the limiteds are not to speak until spoken to.

Then came the limited liability companies (LLCs).

These caused tax planners to swoon because they allowed a member to actually participate in the business without forfeiting that liability protection.

COMMENT: BTW the banks are quite aware of this. That is why the bank will likely request the member to also sign personally. Still that is preferable to being a general, where receipt of the partnership interest immediately makes you liable.

Did you catch the use of the word “member?” Equity participants in an LLC are referred to as “members,” not “partners.”

So how are LLCs taxed?

Like a partnership. 

COMMENT: I know. All we did was take that car around the block.

Let’s return to that self-employment issue: is a “member” subject to self-employment tax because he/she participates (like a general) or not subject because he/she has limited liability (like a limited)?

It would help if the IRS had published guidance in this area since the days of the Rockford Files. Many advisors, including me, reason that once the LLC is income-taxable as a partnership then it is also self-employment taxable as a partnership. That is what “like a” means. If you work there, it is self-employment income to you.

But I do not have to go far to find another accountant who disagrees with me.

What to do?

Some advisors allow their LLC member-clients to draw W-2s.

Some do not.

There is a problem, however: a member is not considered an employee. And one has to be an employee to receive a W-2.

The fallback reasoning for a long time has been that a member “is like” an employee, in the same sense that I am “like” LeBron James.

It is not technically-vigorous reasoning, and I could not guard LeBron with a squad of Marines by my side.

Then the IRS said that it would respect a single-member LLC as the employer of record, rather than going up the ownership chain to whoever the sole owner is. The IRS would henceforth treat the single-member as a corporate employer for employment taxes, although the single-member would continue to be disregarded for income tax purposes (it is confusing, I know).  The IRS included exceptions, examples and what-nots, but they did not include one that addressed LLC members directly.

The members-want-W-2s school used this notice to further argue their position. You have the LLC set-up a single-member subsidiary LLC and have the subsidiary – now considered a corporate employer – issue W-2s to the members. Voila!    

Let’s be clear why people care about this issue: estimated taxes. People do not like paying estimated taxes. It requires a chunk of money every three months. Members pay estimated taxes. Members would prefer withholding. Withholding comes out of every check, which is less painful, and don’t even talk about that three-month thing.    

The IRS has backed-off the member/W-2 issue for a long time.

However the IRS recently issued guidance that the above “parent-subsidiary” structure will not work, and taxpayers have until August 1 to comply. The IRS did this by firing its big guns: it issued Regulations. There are enhanced disclosure requirements when one takes a position contrary to Regulations, and very few practitioners care to do that. It is considered a “call me to book the audit” disclosure.

The IRS has given these advisors little more than two whole months to rope-in their errant LLC clients. 

Although the window is tight, I agree with the IRS on this one, except for that two-month thing. They feel they have floated the change long enough to alert practitioners. I would have made it effective January 1, 2017, if only for administrative ease. 

Still this is an area that needs improvement. While the IRS is concerned that member W-2s may lead to members inappropriately participating in benefit plans, there is also mounting demand for member withholding. 

Perhaps the answer is to allow withholding but to use something other than a W-2. One could design yet another 1099, and the member would attach it to his/her tax return to document the withholding. Any additional paperwork is a bother at the LLC level, but it would just join the list of bothersome things. The members wanting withholding would have to employ their powers of persuasion.

Sounds like the beginning of a compromise.

The SMLLC and the Family Payroll Tax Exemption

If you are a single-member LLC (SMLLC) reporting for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship, you may be interested in a recent payroll tax change.

An SMLLC is reported for income tax purposes as either a corporation or a proprietorship. A question came up in recent years on how to treat an SMLLC for payroll tax purposes. In August, 2007 the IRS issued final regulations requiring the SMLLC to be treated as the taxpayer for employment tax purposes. This meant that it had to get an identification number separate from its sole member, for example. These regulations became effective January 1, 2009.

This in turn raised the question on what to do with the family employment tax exemption. The family tax exemption allows a proprietor who pays his/her spouse or children the following:

·         For a child under age 18, unemployment, FICA and Medicare taxes will not apply

·         For a child over 17 but under 21, unemployment taxes will not apply

·         For a spouse, unemployment taxes will not apply

By treating the SMLLC as an entity distinct from the sole member, the parent was not employing the family member, at least technically. This threw-out the family employment tax exemption.

Talk about unintended consequences.

The IRS has now reversed course and has expanded the family tax exemption to SMLLCs – and has made the exemption retroactive to January 1, 2009. This could mean that amended payroll tax returns are in order.

Example: You operate as a SMLLC. You have 7 employees, which include your spouse, a child age 16 and a child age 19. What are the federal employment tax consequences?

a.       The child age 17 is exempt from FICA, Medicare and unemployment

b.      The child age 19 is exempt from unemployment

c.       The spouse is exempt from unemployment