Partnership Exchanges: Structuring "Drop and Swap" and "Mixing Bowl" Transactions

Transcription

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Partnership Exchanges: Structuring "Drop and Swap" and "Mixing Bowl" Transactions Minimizing the Risk of an Unfavorable Audit Outcome TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Maher Haddad, Attorney, Baker & McKenzie, Chicago Mark E. Wilensky, Partner, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, Mineola, N.Y. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 10. NOTE: If you are seeking CPE credit, you must listen via your computer phone listening is no longer permitted.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. NOTE: If you are seeking CPE credit, you must listen via your computer phone listening is no longer permitted. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about CLE credit processing call us at ext. 35. For CPE credits, attendees must participate until the end of the Q&A session and respond to five prompts during the program plus a single verification code. In addition, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar and include the final verification code on the Affirmation of Attendance portion of the form. For additional information about CPE credit processing call us at ext. 35.

4 Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

5 Avoid Tax Advisor Last transactions! 5

6 Partnership Split Up Disgruntled partners may be motivated sellers Partners do not wish to stay together Some partners may wish to cash out Other partners may wish to exchange 6

7 A B Swap and Drop C ABC Partnership Parcel 1 Real Estate Parcel A QI Parcel 2 Parcel 3 7

8 A B Swap and Drop C ABC Partnership QI Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 8

9 Swap and Drop Parcel 2 Parcel 1 A B C Parcel 3 ABC Partnership 9

10 Drop & Swap Example: Division Proximate to an Exchange Partnership AB is looking to sell Blackacre, and partners are looking to do separate exchanges Partner A (50%) wants to exchange for Whiteacre Partner B (50%) wants to exchange for Greenacre Partners want to go their separate ways 10

11 After Drop and Swap, some partners may just Drop and take the cash. 11

12 Tenancy in Common May be treated as a partnership for tax purposes under Section 761 Can destroy 1031 because partnership interests do not qualify Electing out of Subchapter K 12

13 Tenants in Common Must Avoid de facto Partnership. Property should not be actively managed by owners. Property can be wrapped with a Net Lease Third party managers Should observe formalities of separate ownership: Insurance Real estate taxes Notice to tenants May drop each TIC interest into separate LLC prior to distribution Better to hold for some period as TIC before exchange 13

14 Rev. Proc Ruling standards for: Multiple owners Single tenant under single lease Tenancies in common interests are packaged and marketed for smaller 1031 exchanges Also useful for portfolio transactions where one property is used as replacement property for multiple entities 14

15 Not more than 35 owners Key Requirements under Rev. Proc Related parties as defined under sections 267(b) and 707(b) interests are aggregated for purposes of the 35 owner rule Partnership returns not filed Limited co-ownership agreement permitted Right of first refusal allowed Majority voting on certain matters Unanimous approval required for sales, leases, financings, hiring managers, etc. 15

16 Each co-owner must be permitted to sell or encumber without approval of other owners Certain common lender restrictions are allowed No business activities allowed Activities limited to customary maintenance and repair of realty Must not conduct business under a common name Management agreements must be renewable no less than annually 16

17 The 11 th Hour Drop & Swap What if Partnership AB is already in contract for the sale of Blackacre, or otherwise about to enter into contract? Well documented independent business purpose for the distribution of TIC interests? Intention to rescind the transaction if sale falls through? Attention to details; books and records; follow partnership agreement; reflect drop on tax returns, etc. etc. 17

18 The 11 th Hour Drop & Swap Independent business purpose for the distribution of TIC interests: Dissension Fit and Focus -type reasons to carry on business separately 18

19 Reporting Requirements Partnership reporting on Form 1065: Distribution of property received in a like kind exchange or contribution of such property to another entity (Question 13) Distribution of TIC interest in partnership property to a partner (Question 14) Reporting ownership of tenant-in-common interests on individual 1040s IRS Form

20 Deemed Mixed Person Transactions Both relinquished and replacement properties must be held by the same person Deemed mixed person transaction: one person transfers relinquished property, another person receives replacement property Timing of intention to liquidate 20

21 Court Holding v. Commissioner, 324 US 331 (1945) Sale contract fully negotiated by corporation, but then tax advisors got in the way. Corporation liquidated tax free and shareholders entered into identical sales contract Court found under substance v. form doctrine that this was really a sale by the corporation. Unclear how far Court Holding goes but it appears to apply to the narrow band of transactions where the liquidation of a corporation was merely an afterthought and deal was already fully baked. 21

22 Contrast US v. Cumberland Public Service Co., 338 US 451 (1950) Sale by shareholders to avoid corporate taxes condoned; Drop was considered while contract was being negotiated; Drop was implemented after contract was entered into by the corporation; Drop actually occurred 2 days prior to the closing; Purchaser a power generation cooperative refused to purchase stock; Court seemed to focus on the fact that there was a genuine liquidation and that tax avoidance motivation was not impermissible. 22

23 Chase v. Commissioner, 92 TC 874 (1989) IRS successfully challenged last minute drop and swap Bad facts make bad law Partnership never liquidated Only the GP took a TIC; but stayed in the partnership Partnership agreement didn t allow the distribution Partnership didn t report the transaction as a drop of a TIC Books and records did not reflect the TIC Profits shared under partnership agreement even after the TIC was created. 23

24 With Multiple Partnerships Drop and Swap can be used to divide up portfolio Tenancies in common can be mutually exchanged 24

25 Properties held in a large number of brother/sister partnerships How much does ownership overlap? What percentage is owned by outside investors? 25

26 Practical difficulties of structuring many drop & swap structures Are the parties really willing to become tenants in common? Carried interests? Control? Imminent sale? Practical difficulties of structuring mixing bowl Multiple entities with different partners can be difficult to combine fairly Long waiting periods together may not be acceptable 26

27 The Mixing Bowl Alternative 27

28 Mixing Bowl Examples The Question: How soon can the partners dissolve the mixing bowl partnership? Parties agree to liquidate after, alternatively: Less than 2 years More than 2 but within 7 years More than 7 years Can agreement contain liquidation procedures to avoid contention later as to who gets which property interests (e.g., auction)? 28

29 The Mixing Bowl Alternative: 2-Person Partnerships A and B own all of Company 1 and Company 2 Company 1 owns Property 1 Company 2 owns Property 2 A and B want to go their separate ways Partner A wants Property 1 Partner B wants Property 2 29

30 THE DISGUISED SALE RULES 30

31 IRC Section 707(a)(2)(B): Disguised Sale If: (i) there is a direct or indirect transfer of money or other property by a partner to a partnership, (ii) there is a related direct or indirect transfer of money or other property by the partnership to such partner (or another partner), and (iii) the transfers described in clauses (i) and (ii), when viewed together, are properly characterized as a sale or exchange of property, Then: such transfers shall be treated either as a transaction occurring between the partnership and one who is not a partner or as a transaction between 2 or more partners acting other than in their capacity as members of the partnership. 31

32 IRC Section 707(a)(2)(B): Disguised Sale Reg. sec (b)(2) lists factors tending to indicate disguised sale: Timing and amount of subsequent transfer are determinable with reasonable certainty. The transferor has a legally enforceable right to subsequent transfer. Arrangements are in place to ensure that the purchase price can and will be paid (e.g., financing commitments and commitments to contribute by others, marketable securities in partnership). Bottom line: is the subsequent transfer of property to the contributing partner subject to entrepreneurial risk of partnership operations? 32

33 THE ANTI-MIXING BOWL RULES 2014 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 33

34 Anti-Mixing Bowl Rule #1: IRC 704(c)(1)(B) If: any property contributed by a partner is distributed (directly or indirectly) by the partnership (other than to the contributing partner) within 7 years of being contributed Then: the contributing partner shall be treated as recognizing gain or loss (as the case may be) from the sale of such property in an amount equal to the gain or loss which would have been allocated to such partner under IRC 704(c)(1)((A) by reason of the variation between the basis of such property to the partnership and its FMV at the time of contribution if the property had been sold at its fair market value at the time of the distribution Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 34

35 Anti-Mixing Bowl Rule #1: IRC 704(c)(1)(B) If: any property contributed by a partner is distributed (directly or indirectly) by the partnership (other than to the contributing partner) within 7 years of being contributed Then: the contributing partner shall be treated as recognizing gain or loss (as the case may be) from the sale of such property in an amount equal to the gain or loss which would have been allocated to such partner under IRC 704(c)(1)((A) by reason of the variation between the basis of such property to the partnership and its FMV at the time of contribution if the property had been sold at its fair market value at the time of the distribution Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 35

36 Anti-Mixing Bowl Rule #2: IRC Section 737 In the case of any distribution by a partnership to a partner, such partner shall be treated as recognizing gain in an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the excess (if any) of (A) the fair market value of property (other than money) received in the distribution over (B) the adjusted basis of such partner's interest in the partnership immediately before the distribution reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of money received in the distribution, or (2) the net precontribution gain of the partner Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 36

37 Substantially Identical Interest Exception No new section 704(c) layer created, so anti-mixing bowl rules do not apply (unless otherwise dealing with 704(c) property) Proposed Regulation sections (c)(4)(ii)(E) and (b)(1)(ii)(E) (97 percent de minimis exception): Notice (same owner same proportion exception) 2014 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 37

38 IRC Section 704(c)(2): Like Kind Exception Special rule for distributions where gain or loss would not be recognized outside partnerships. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if (A) property contributed by a partner (hereinafter referred to as the contributing partner ) is distributed by the partnership to another partner, and (B) other property of a like kind (within the meaning of section 1031) is distributed by the partnership to the contributing partner not later than the earlier of (i) the 180th day after the date of the distribution described in subparagraph (A), or (ii) the due date (determined with regard to extensions) for the contributing partner's return of the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which the distribution described in subparagraph (A) occurs, then to the extent of the value of the property described in (B), IRC section 704(c)(1)(B) shall be applied as if the contributing partner had contributed to the partnership the property described in (B) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 38

39 IRC Section 704(c)(2): Like Kind Exception Treasury Regulation section (d)(3) the amount of gain or loss, if any, that the contributing partner would otherwise have recognized under section 704(c)(1)(B) and this section is reduced by the amount of built-in gain or loss in the distributed like-kind property in the hands of the contributing partner immediately after the distribution. The contributing partner's basis in the distributed like-kind property is determined as if the like-kind property were distributed in an unrelated distribution prior to the distribution of any other property distributed as part of the same distribution. Disguised sale rules may still apply Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 39

40 IRC Section 737 and the Like Kind Exception Reg. sec (c)(2)(iv): Net precontribution gain is determined after taking into account-- Any gain or loss recognized by the partner under section 704(c)(1)(B) and regulation section on an actual distribution to another partner of property contributed by the distributee partner that is part of the same distribution to the distributee partner; and Any gain or loss that would have been recognized by the partner except for the like kind exception in section 704(c)(2) and regulation section (d)(3) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 40

41 IRC Section 737 and the Like Kind Exception Reg. sec (c)(2)(v): A distributee partner s net precontribution gain is determined without regard to the provisions of section 704(c)(2) and section (d)(3) in situations in which the property contributed by the distributee partner is not actually distributed to another partner in a distribution related to the section 737 distribution. Preamble to Regulations: This provision clarifies that section 737 does not contain a like-kind exception similar to the exception in section 704(c)(2). Section 737 applies even if the property received by the partner is of a like-kind with the contributed property. 41

42 Thank You Maher Haddad Baker & McKenzie Mark E. Wilensky Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone 42