T +1 408 346 4325
T +1 415 354 4798
T +1 415 318 2298
Matthew A. Stevens
T +1 415 318 2238
Jamie C. Yesnowitz
T +1 202 521 1504
T +1 312 302 8617
T +1 513 345 4540
T +1 215 814 1743
On July 8, 2019, the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) released a decision holding that an out-of-state LLC whose sole connection to California was the passive ownership of a manager-managed LLC doing business in California was not “doing business” in California under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 23101(a).1
The OTA rejected the position of the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) that a “bright-line” 0.2% ownership threshold applied, above which an LLC interest holder is “doing business” in California.2
Instead, the OTA held that an out-of-state minority interest holder owing between 1.12% and 4.75% of an LLC doing business in California, with nothing more, is not “doing business” in California and therefore not subject to the annual $800 LLC tax.
Appellant Jali, LLC (Jali) acquired an interest in Bullseye Capital Real Property Opportunity Fund, LLC (Bullseye) in 2012. Between 2012 and 2016 (the tax years on appeal), its ownership interest ranged between 1.12% and 4.75%. Bullseye was a manager-managed LLC incorporated in Delaware that was doing business in California during each of the years on appeal. Bullseye elected to be taxed as partnership for both federal and California purposes during the years on appeal. Jali’s interest in Bullseye was passive in nature, allowing Jali no power to participate in its management, bind or act on behalf of Bullseye, or retain any specific ownership interest in Bullseye’s property. Jali was also not personally liable for any of Bullseye’s debts or liabilities.
Jali did not file a California LLC return for the 2012 through 2016 tax years. Upon receiving a demand letter from the FTB for a 2012 LLC return, Jali filed returns for the 2012 through 2016 tax years paying the $800 LLC tax plus penalties and interest. After paying these amounts, Jali immediately filed refund claims for all amounts paid on the grounds that it was not “doing business in” California. The FTB denied these refund claims and Jali filed a timely appeal with the OTA.
OTA analysis regarding ‘doing business’ standard
Under Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 17941(a), every LLC “doing business” in California is subject to the annual $800 LLC tax. Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 23101(a) provides that a taxpayer is “doing business” in California if “actively engaging in any transaction for the purposes of financial or pecuniary gain or profit.”3
In Swart Enterprises, Inc., v. Franchise Tax Board
, the Court of Appeal applied this standard to an out-of-state LLC passively owing a 0.2% minority interest in an LLC that was doing business in California, and held that the 0.2% minority interest owner “was not doing business in California based solely on its minority ownership interest in the [LLC doing business in California].”4
In Appeal of Jali
, the FTB argued that the 0.2% ownership level at issue in Swart
must be interpreted as a ceiling, above which a minority interest holder in an LLC that is doing business in California will itself be “doing business” in California. The OTA summarized the FTB’s position as meaning that “a 0.2% membership interest in an LLC doing business in California is the new, post-Swart
bright-line ownership threshold used to determine whether an out-of-state member is also doing business in the state.”
The OTA disagreed with the FTB’s interpretation of Swart
, and concluded that Swart
did not create any bright-line ownership rule. Rather, the “court was simply dismissing FTB’s argument that the court should base its decision on that fact alone.” Turning to the analysis in Swart
, the OTA highlighted that in addition to the LLC member’s ownership percentage, “one must still generally conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into the relationship between the out-of-state member and the in-state LLC.” Concerning the relevant factual inquiries, the OTA further wrote:
This may include whether the in-state LLC is manager-managed, whether the out-of-state member holds a non-managing member interest, and whether the out-of-state member is actively involved in the business activities of the in-state LLC. We believe such an interpretation properly reflects the rationale of Swart and faithfully adheres to its legal principles.
Drawing on the factual parallels between Jali and the taxpayer in Swart
, the OTA treated Jali’s minority LLC interest as more closely resembling a limited partnership interest than a general partnership interest. Accordingly, in the same manner as the taxpayer in Swart
, Jali was held not to be doing business in California within the meaning of Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 23101(a), and did not owe the $800 LLC tax described in Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 17941(a).
This unanimous decision by the OTA follows the analysis by the California Court of Appeal in Swart
, which analyzed the factual relationship between the out-of-state member and the in-state LLC to determine if the LLC interest should be treated like a limited partnership interest when applying California’s doing business standard. The OTA’s express rejection of the FTB’s argument that Swart
created a 0.2% bright-line ownership threshold provides helpful guidance to out-of-state companies seeking to invest in funds organized as LLCs that may be doing business in California. When contemplating such an investment, out-of-state investors should carefully analyze the factors considered by the OTA in this matter to reach the conclusion that Jali’s minority ownership interest did not cause it to be “doing business” in California within the meaning of Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 23101(a). In addition, refund claims may be appropriate here, particularly for out-of-state taxpayers that own numerous non-controlling, passive investments in California LLCs.
Importantly, this matter only concerns subdivision (a) of Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. Section 23101, and does not offer protection to out-of-state LLCs meeting the factor-presence “doing business” thresholds set forth in Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code Sec. 23101(b), applicable in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. Last, it is worth noting that the FTB has no further right of appeal in this matter given its disposition by the OTA.
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 “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.