partnership exchanges: structuring drop and swap and...
TRANSCRIPT
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
NOTE: If you are seeking CPE credit, you must listen via your computer — phone listening is no
longer permitted.
Partnership Exchanges: Structuring "Drop
and Swap" and "Mixing Bowl" Transactions Minimizing the Risk of an Unfavorable Audit Outcome
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2017
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Todd D. Keator, Partner, Thompson & Knight, Dallas
Crawford Moorefield, Partner, Strasburger & Price, Houston
Mark E. Wilensky, Partner, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone, Mineola, N.Y.
Tips for Optimal Quality
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
1-866-328-9525 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] 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.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
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 email that you
will receive immediately following the program.
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 continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext.
35.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
4
Section 1031 Basics
• There must be an exchange
– Owner of Relinquished Property must never have actual or constructive receipt of sales proceeds
– Deferred or Reverse Like-Kind Exchanges are fine
• Reverse exchange where replacement property acquired before relinquished property sold – Rev. Proc 2000-37 safe harbors, 45 days to identify
relinquished property, 180 days to close sale
• Deferred Like-Kind Exchange – 45 days to identify potential replacement properties – up to
200% of FMV of relinquished property
– 180 days to close – on replacement property after sale of relinquished property
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 4
5
Section 1031 Basics (cont’d)
• Must be qualifying property – i.e., no stock, interests in trusts or partnership or LLC interests
• Replacement property must be of “like-kind” to relinquished property
• Both relinquished and replacement properties must be “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment”
• Same taxpayer that starts the exchange must complete it
– Newly formed disregarded LLCs permitted to acquire title
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 5
6
Bob wants to diversify his real estate holdings by contributing BobAcre to Swinger, L.P. The current
owners of Swinger, L.P. wouldn’t touch BobAcre with a 10-foot pole – think potential environmental liability. They would love to own Swing Acre, currently owned
by Mr. Mellow.
Swinger, L.P.
Bob
BobAcre
Carol Ted Alice
GrooveAcre
Swap and Drop Hypothetical
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 6
7
Bob swaps BobAcre for Swing Acre. If Mr. Mellow preferred cash and another Buyer for BobAcre was out there, Bob could arrange a
deferred like-kind exchange through a Qualified Intermediary.
Bob Mr. Mellow
Swing Acre
Swap and Drop Hypothetical (cont’d)
BobAcre
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 7
8
Immediately after the exchange, Bob contributes Swing Acre to Swinger, L.P. in
exchange for a 25% interest.
Swinger, L.P. Swinger, L.P.
Bob
Swing Acre
Carol Ted Alice
LP Interest
Swap and Drop Hypothetical (cont’d)
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 8
Magneson v. Commissioner, 753 F.2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1985), aff’g 81 T.C. 767 (1983)
• Taxpayers exchanged their fee interest in Property #1 with owner of Property #2 for 10% undivided interest in Property #2 (“Plaza Property”)
• On the same day, co-owners of Plaza Property contributed their respective undivided interests in Plaza Property to a newly formed limited partnership
• Taxpayers received general partnership interests in the new partnership
• Held: taxpayers held the replacement property for investment notwithstanding immediate IRC 721(a) contribution to partnership
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 9
10
Drop & Swap Hypothetical
Carol Ted Alice Bob
Swinger, L.P.
Tedshire
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 10
11
Swinger, L.P. distributes a 25% undivided interest in Tedshire to Bob in redemption of Bob’s
partnership interest.
Carol Ted Alice Bob
Swinger, L.P.
Drop & Swap Hypothetical (cont’d)
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved.
75% Undivided Interest in Tedshire
11
12
Swinger, L.P.
Bob
75% Undivided Interest
25% Undivided Interest
Tedshire
Drop & Swap Hypothetical (cont’d)
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 12
13
Bob
Truth Acre 25% Tedshire
Mr. Murphy
Truth Acre
QI
Tedshire 25%
Mr. Mellow
$
$
Bob subsequently exchanges his 25% undivided interest in Tedshire for Truth Acre. Mr. Mellow
purchases the remaining 75% interest in Tedshire from Swinger, L.P.
Drop & Swap Hypothetical (cont’d)
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 13
The 11th Hour Drop & Swap
• What if Swinger, L.P. is already in contract for the sale of Tedshire, 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.
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 14
The 11th Hour Drop & Swap
• Independent business purpose for the distribution of TIC interests:
– Dissension
– “Fit and Focus”-type reasons to carry on business separately
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 15
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 8824
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 16
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
17
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
19
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
20
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 21
Tenants in Common Must Avoid De Facto
Partnership
• 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
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 22
Tenants in Common Must Avoid De Facto Partnership
• Activities must be limited to those customarily performed in connection with the maintenance and repair of rental real property
– Rents must qualify for UBIT exclusion
– Rev. Rul. 75-374: Third party manager not acting as agent of co-owners can provide non-customary services to tenants
– Property can be “wrapped” with a Net Lease
• 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
23 © 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
Rev. Proc. 2002-22
• 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
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 24
Key Requirements under Rev. Proc. 2002-22
• Not more than 35 owners
• 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 offer to other co-owners, call options allowed
– Put rights generally not allowed
• Majority voting on certain matters
• Unanimous approval required for sales, leases, financings, hiring managers, etc.
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 25
Key Requirements under Rev. Proc. 2002-22
• 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 frequently than annually
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 26
27
Could you achieve the same tax result by having Swinger, L.P. sell a 75% interest in Tedshire to Mellow for cash and swap the other 25% for Truth Acre and
simply allocate all of the taxable gain to Carol, Ted and
Alice? Substantiality issue under IRC 704(b).
Carol Ted Alice Bob
Swinger, L.P.
Alternatives to Drop & Swap: Special Allocations
Tedshire
© 2017 Strasburger, LLP
All rights reserved. 27
Other Alternatives to Drop & Swap—Single Relinquished Property
• Partner buyout or redemption prior to sale
• Requires partners/partnership to have cash
• Buyer installment note requiring at least one payment the following year
• Qualified intermediary installment note requiring at least one payment the following year
• May mean high debt-equity ratio for replacement property, if relinquished property was encumbered
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 28
Other Alternatives to Drop & Swap—Single Relinquished Property
• Tracking Units
• Different partners designate their own replacement property
• Partnership acquires multiple replacement properties
• Partnership agreement provides for tracking allocations of profit and loss
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 29
With Multiple Partnerships – Drop and Swap can be used to divide up
portfolio
• Tenancies in common can be mutually exchanged
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 30
Drop & Swap—Multiple Properties
• Properties held in a large number of brother/sister partnerships
• How much does ownership overlap?
• What percentage is owned by outside investors?
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 31
Drop & Swap—Multiple Properties
• 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 © 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 32
The Mixing Bowl Alternative
To Swap Involving Multiple Properties
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 33
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)?
34
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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
35
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
THE “DISGUISED SALE” RULES
37
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
38
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
IRC Section 707(a)(2)(B): “Disguised Sale”
• Reg. sec. 1.707-3(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?
39
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
THE ANTI-MIXING BOWL RULES
40
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
41
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
42
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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.
43
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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 1.704-4(c)(4)(ii)(E) and 1.737-2(b)(1)(ii)(E) (97 percent de minimis exception):
• Notice 2005-15 (same owner same proportion exception)
44
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
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).
45
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
IRC Section 704(c)(2): “Like Kind”
Exception
• Treasury Regulation section 1.704-4(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.
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 46
IRC Section 737 and the “Like Kind”
Exception
• Reg. sec. 1.737-1(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 1.704-4 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 1.704-4(d)(3).”
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved. 47
IRC Section 737 and the “Like Kind”
Exception
• Reg. sec. 1.737-1(c)(2)(v):
• “A distributee partner’s net precontribution gain is determined without regard to the provisions of section 704(c)(2) and section 1.704-4(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.”
48
© 2017 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
All rights reserved.
Thank You
Todd D. Keator
Thompson & Knight LLP, Dallas, TX
Crawford Moorefield
Strasburger, LLP, Houston, TX
Mark E. Wilensky
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola, NY
49