Partnership loans create COD income for partners


The Tax Court, in Hohl v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-5), characterized a partner’s infusions of cash to a partnership as a loan, rather than a capital contribution, resulting in the partnership recognizing cancellation of debt (COD) income. The court found the parties consistently treated the cash infusions as loans but ultimately took an inconsistent position in pursuit of a favorable tax outcome. The case demonstrates the importance of examining all the facts of a situation when analyzing the proper tax characterization of a transaction or event.

In Hohl, a partnership, Echo Mobile Marketing Solutions, LLC (Echo), operated from 2009 to 2012 with three service partners and a fourth partner who was to provide capital, Mr. Rodriguez. The partnership agreement provided that each of the three service partners contributed no money and owned a 30% interest in Echo, and that Mr. Rodriguez contributed $265,000 in exchange for a 10% interest.

Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly transferred funds to the partnership, and the funds were recorded as loans to the partnership. The partnership’s 2009 partnership return reported a liability under “Other liabilities” for the exact amount Mr. Rodriguez provided in 2009. On the 2009 Schedules K-1, the partners were allocated their share of the liability (which was reported as a recourse liability) according to their percentage interests in the partnership, with 10% to Mr. Rodriguez, and were allocated losses in accordance with their percentage interests.

However, none of the Schedules K-1 reported any initial capital account balances. In 2010, the partnership similarly reported an increase in the liability, which reflected an additional cash infusion from Mr. Rodriguez, but allocated the liability 100% to Mr. Rodriguez. Notwithstanding the liability allocation, Echo allocated the loss in the same percentages for the previous year. In 2011, the liabilities increased again by the amount Mr. Rodriguez transferred to the partnership in 2011, and again 100% of the liability was allocated to him. Echo reported no income, deductions, or losses for 2011. The final partnership return was filed in 2012, and again the partnership liabilities were increased. The schedule K-1 for Mr. Rodriguez showed a negative capital account but no longer reported any share of partnership liabilities and none of the other partners’ schedules K-1 reported any share of the liability.

The Tax Court looked at three factors in determining the tax characterization of Mr. Rodriguez’s cash infusions: (1) the presence of a written agreement; (2) the intent of the parties; and (3) the likelihood of obtaining similar loans from disinterested investors.

The court focused on the second factor, looking at how the partnership treated the cash infusions. The initial amount paid by Mr. Rodriguez was not included in his initial capital account balance and the partnership never increased Mr. Rodriguez’s ownership percentage for his “supposed additional capital contributions.” The partnership agreement also stated that if the partnership needed more capital it would notify all partners in writing and give all partners an “equal opportunity to contribute,” which did not happen. Though there was no written loan document between Mr. Rodriguez and Echo and the operating agreement stated the first payment made by Mr. Rodriguez was a capital contribution, the Tax Court rejected the partners’ argument that these payments were capital contributions rather than loans. It found that the parties’ actions, including how they reported their activities on their tax returns and their capital accounting, evidenced their intent to treat Mr. Rodriguez’s cash infusions as a loan.

After concluding that the funds provided by Mr. Rodriguez were loans to the partnership, resulting in COD income to the partnership, the court also addressed the allocation of the income among the partners.

Hohl serves as a useful reminder that it is important to understand the parties’ intent and to know the facts of an arrangement when analyzing the tax effects thereof.



Tax professional standards statement

This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “§,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.


More tax hot topics