Case — Payments to a Retiring Partner

Thanks for sharing!

TL Case Summ

THE QUESTION

Are payments made from a partnership to a retiring partner ordinary income or capital gains?

THE DISPUTE

Taxpayer Says: The payments were made in exchange for an interest in the partnership and should be taxed as long-term capital gains.

Internal Revenue Service Says: The distributions are guaranteed payments and should be taxed as ordinary income.

THE LAW

From Internal Revenue Code Section 736(a)(1), 736(a)(2), 736(b): Payments made by a partnership in liquidation of the interest of a retired partner are divided into three categories; (1) those representing the recipient’s distributive share of partnership income, (2) those deemed to be guaranteed payments, and (3) those in exchange for the partner’s interest in partnership property.

From Revenue Ruling 75-154: Periodic payments made in satisfaction of a partnership liability to a previously retired partner, in addition to amounts previously paid to the retired partner for his interest in partnership property, are guaranteed payments because they are determined without regard to the income of the partnership.

THE CAUSE OF THE DISPUTE

When you retire from a partnership, you may receive payments that include your share of the partnership’s income or loss from operations, payments made to you for the use of your capital without regard to the partnership’s income or loss (guaranteed payments) and payments for your interest in the partnership.

Guaranteed payments and your share of the partnership’s income or loss are treated as ordinary income, and are taxed at ordinary income rates according to your marginal tax bracket. Payments you receive for your partnership interest can either be a nontaxable return of your investment or a capital gain, taxed at more favorable capital gains rates.

In this case, a retiring partner received cash distributions in liquidation of his partnership interest. Included in the payments were amounts for ‘units’ he had been awarded during his years with the partnership. Partners received 50 of the units each year for services rendered to the partnership regardless of the size of their partnership interest and without regard to the partnership’s income. Partners received no payment for the units at the time of distribution. Instead, partners received the value of the units over a certain time period upon retirement.

The taxpayer says the partnership agreement states the value of a partner’s interest in the partnership is the sum of the partner’s capital account and the units. The taxpayer believes that definition means the payments for his units were made in exchange for his interest in the partnership, and they should be taxed as long-term capital gains.

The IRS says the partnership agreement does not define the units as partnership property, so payments for them do not constitute a return of capital. In addition, since the units were granted without regard to the partnership’s income, distributions based on their value are guaranteed payments and should be taxed as ordinary income.

WHAT WOULD YOU DECIDE?

Make your selection, then see “The Court’s Decision” below for a full explanation

For the or for the

THE COURT’S DECISION

Download (PDF, 35KB)

***

HL Carpenter, an experienced investor and a CPA, specializes in reader friendly articles on taxes and investing for individuals and small businesses, and publishes two newsletters: Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink. Visit TaxingLessons.com and HLCarpenter.com.

This information should not be considered legal, investment or tax advice. Taxing Lessons and Top Drawer Ink Corp. do not provide legal, investment or tax advice. Always consult your legal, investment and/or tax advisor regarding your personal situation.

***

Other posts you might enjoy

Decisions — Taxing choices Image source: Free Picture © Semen Barkovskiy Dreamstime Stock Photos   How many options can you consider before you find yourself longing for simplicity? Whatever your answer, part of the desire for less complexity comes from not wanting to make the wrong choice. That's especially true ...
Decisions — Where’s your refund? Image source: By U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Where's your refund? Possibly helping to reduce the federal budget deficit, if you failed to file a return to get an overpayment back within the applicable time period. That's because the gov...
Case — Fun and games Image source: openclipart.org (public domain image) THE QUESTION Does an organization that offers a recreational activity to achieve a charitable purpose qualify as a charitable organization? THE DISPUTE Taxpayer Says: It operates for charitable purposes because it provides relief for the p...
Case — Carry On THE QUESTION Can an IRA deduction that is disallowed due to active participant status in an employer plan be carried forward and deducted in a future year? THE DISPUTE Taxpayer Says: The 2008 IRA contribution was an “excess contribution” and should be allowable as a deduction in 2010. Intern...
Sorry, wrong answer :(
Right answer!
For the IRS. Each partner received the same number of units each year for services rendered regardless of the size of the partner’s partnership interest and without regard to the income of the partnership. The value of the units provided the measurement for retirement amounts to be paid to each of the partners, and the source of payment of those amounts was future revenues. Retirement payments paid to a withdrawing partner as part of the liquidation of partnership interests under section 736 are guaranteed payments.
Posted in Taxing Lessons Case Summaries Tagged with: