Page 85 - JoFA_Jan_Apr23
P. 85

Estate tax distribution shifts, 2019–2021
          in a partnership with C. The GCM cited
          Culbertson, 337 U.S. 733 (1949), for the
          premise that a partnership is an organi-
                                               $12,000
          zation for the production of income to
          which each partner contributes capital
          or services. However, since in Farley, Z’s
                                               $10,000
          entire “contribution” was made as a loan,
                                                            2019    2021
          the GCM concluded that there was no                 Filing year
          basis for finding that Z intended to join   $8,000
          with the corporation as a partner in the
          present conduct of the enterprise and,
          thus, no basis for finding the existence of   Net estate tax (millions)  $6,000
          a partnership. Although conceding that
          the economic realities of the arrange-
          ments in Farley warranted recognition   $4,000
          of both debt and equity elements, GCM
          36,702 observed that there would be
          serious computational problems in allo-  $2,000
          cating a single contribution to severable
          debt and equity interests. These com-
                                                   0
          putational problems could be avoided if
                                                      Under $10 million  $10 million to   $10 million to   $50 million or
          the entire contribution was allocated to a               under $20 million  under $50 million  more
          single equity interest.
                                                                       Size of gross estate
            In Deitch, the IRS maintained the
          position described in GCM 36,702 and   Source: Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute & Brookings Institution.
          did not argue that PLI’s advances under
          the loan agreements and additional
          interest agreement should be bifurcated
          between an equity interest and a debt   could suggest that PLI held an equity   In evaluating whether PLI and
          interest. The IRS’s primary argument for   investment).            WTS formed a partnership, the court
          disallowing deductions for payments on   However, the court first evaluated   looked to the factors set forth in Luna,
          the additional interest agreement was   whether the arrangement between WTS   42 T.C. 1067, 1077 (1964), which are
          that the loan agreements and additional   and PLI gave rise to a partnership in   frequently cited in determining whether
          interest agreement constituted equity in   which PLI might obtain an equity inter-  an economic relationship constitutes a
          their entirety.                   est. Originally, the IRS had contended   partnership or whether a taxpayer is a
            In evaluating whether a particular   that the amount paid to PLI reduced the   partner in a partnership:
          instrument is treated as a partnership   capital gain income of WTS (and of its   1.  The agreement of the parties and
          interest (i.e., equity) versus partner-  partners) and was a nondeductible return   their conduct in executing its terms;
          ship debt, courts have often employed   on PLI’s equity interest in WTS. Sub-  2.  The contributions, if any, that each
          multifactor facts-and-circumstances tests   sequently, the IRS refined its position   party has made to the venture;
          similar to those used in debt-versus-  and asserted that the additional interest   3.  The parties’ control over income and
          equity analyses for corporations (see   agreement created a joint venture be-  capital and the right of each to make
          Hambuechen, 43 T.C. 90 (1964)). The   tween WTS and PLI so that the amount   withdrawals;
          IRS argued that the 13 debt-versus-  paid to PLI was a nondeductible return   4.  Whether each party was a principal
          equity factors typically employed by the   on PLI’s equity interest not in WTS but   and coproprietor, sharing a mutual
          Eleventh Circuit (the circuit to which   in a joint venture between WTS and   proprietary interest in the net profits
          an appeal of the case would lie) clearly   PLI. If the IRS’s position were correct,   and having an obligation to share
          demonstrated that PLI’s advance was   then the payments made to PLI under   losses, or whether one party was
          made in respect of an equity interest   the additional interest agreement might   the agent or employee of the other,
          and not debt (for instance, WTS’s thin   simply be allocations of partnership   receiving for its services contingent
          capitalization and PLI’s entitlement to a   income rather than payments by WTS   compensation in the form of a
          share of the Rome property’s net profits   of deductible interest.    percentage of income;

          journalofaccountancy.com                                                              February 2023    |   35
   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90