New York – Manhattan
T +1 212 542 9960
New York – Manhattan
T +1 212 542 9600
New York – Melville
T +1 631 577 1844
New York – Manhattan
T +1 212 624 5406
Jamie C. Yesnowitz
T +1 202 521 1504
T +1 312 602 8517
T +1 513 345 4540
T +1 215 814 1743
On July 30, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Division of the New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) disallowed a federal deduction for commission payments made by an architectural firm to a domestic international sales corporation (DISC) whose only shareholders were all active partners in the firm.1
The ALJ determined that an addback was required because the payments were in effect payments to the firm’s partners, which are not deductible for purposes of the New York City Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT).
The petitioner, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP (Skidmore), is an architectural, urban planning and engineering firm organized as a New York limited liability partnership. In 2004, Skidmore formed Skidmore, Owings & Merrill DISC, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Skidmore formed the DISC in order to defer federal income tax as permitted under IRC Sec. 992.2
That same year, Skidmore and the DISC entered into a commission agreement, under which Skidmore made commission payments to the DISC for agency services that the DISC was deemed to perform for federal income tax purposes. During the 2011-2012 tax years, Skidmore paid approximately $50 million in commissions to the DISC, of which approximately $17 million was apportioned to New York City. During these years, the 14 active equity partners in Skidmore were also the only the shareholders in the DISC, which had no employees and did not file City tax returns.
Following an audit covering the tax years at issue, the New York City Department of Finance issued a notice for a proposed deficiency totaling approximately $1.19 million, consisting of $720,000 in UBT plus $220,000 in interest and $250,000 in penalty. Citing a provision in the New York City Administrative Code, the Department determined that the federal deduction for commission payments made to the DISC was required to be added back “for amounts paid or incurred to a proprietor or partner for services or for use of capital.”3
Skidmore requested a conciliation conference, after which the Department issued a partial decision in August 2017, abating the penalty. In November 2017, Skidmore filed a petition to contest the decision, resulting in the instant case.
In its petition, Skidmore argued that the deductions at issue should be allowed because the DISC received the commission payments, not the firm’s partners. In response, the Department alleged that Skidmore was making payments to the partners for services, because the DISC lacked economic substance and was being used as a mechanism to defer taxes that Skidmore’s partners would otherwise be required to pay.
Acknowledging that there were no direct payments made to partners, the ALJ considered the sole question of whether the federal deduction for deemed commission payments to a DISC whose shareholders are all partners in Skidmore should be allowed for UBT purposes. In its analysis, the ALJ discussed several decisions from the Tribunal’s appeals division. In Matter of Tocqueville Asset Management LP
, the Tribunal disallowed a deduction for compensation paid by a partnership to the employees of a corporate partner that provided services to the partnership, but who were also partners in the partnership.4
The basis for this decision was Matter of Miller Tabak Hirsch & Co.
, which held that payments made to employees who were also partners in the taxpayer were not deductible, and that payments to a partner for services “in whatever capacity” are not deductible.5
Following guidance from applicable Tribunal decisions to look at the economic substance of the transaction, the ALJ first viewed the case through the federal fiction that the DISC rendered services for Skidmore. Noting that the DISC had no employees, the ALJ determined that the only way the DISC could render services was through its shareholders, the active partners of Skidmore. Under this analysis, the ALJ reasoned, “the payments are to partners, and therefore the deduction for these payments must be denied.”
Under an alternative view of the case, the ALJ disregarded the legal fiction of the DISC and acknowledged a federal income tax benefit conferred by a deduction providing a tax benefit to the partners. Guided by previous Tribunal decisions disallowing federal deductions for payments to a retirement plan and a pension plan, the ALJ concluded that such deductions should still be denied.6
Next, the ALJ considered a Department Finance Letter Ruling advanced by Skidmore, which allowed the deduction of payments to a corporation that provided management services by a limited partnership, even though the corporation was partially owned by two shareholders who each owned a 15% interest in the partnership.7
However, the ALJ found that the ruling was easily distinguishable from the present case because Skidmore’s payments were made to a non-partner corporation in which all the active partners of the firm were shareholders.
Finally, the ALJ considered Skidmore’s argument that federal conformity rules required the allowance of the deduction for commissions paid to the DISC, relying on the Tribunal’s decision in Matter of Ark Restaurants Corp
However, the ALJ found that this decision was not controlling because the issue in this case concerned whether an applicable provision required commissions to be added back in computing UBT. In analyzing the economic substance of the transactions, the ALJ determined that such a provision existed.
For these reasons, the ALJ concluded that Skidmore’s commission payments to the DISC could not be deducted because they were payments in effect to the firm’s partners. Accordingly, the ALJ denied Skidmore’s petition and sustained the deficiency notice.
The ALJ decision in Skidmore
represents an instance in which a deduction for payments made to a federally recognized DISC were disallowed under New York City UBT rules regardless of whether they were explicitly permitted for federal income tax purposes. Looking specifically at the economic substance of the commission payments at issue, the ALJ determined that the payments were in fact being made to the partners of the firm because they were all shareholders in the DISC, even though the payments were not directly made to such partners. In effect, the decision indicates that New York City does not respect the DISC structure in this instance for UBT purposes, although it is a permissible structure for federal tax purposes.
In interpreting the New York City Administrative Code provisions, the Department has regularly disallowed deductions for amounts paid for services rendered by: (i) a partner in an unincorporated business; (ii) an officer of a corporate partner in an unincorporated business; or (iii) a partner in a partnership that is a partner in the unincorporated business. The Department’s position has been sustained by Tribunal decisions and promulgated in the city’s UBT rules.9
However, the Skidmore
case presents the unique fact pattern of a payment made to a non-partner DISC having shareholders who are also partners in the firm. The ALJ was not persuaded by the formation of the DISC specifically to obtain a federal tax benefit, and not primarily for UBT tax avoidance purposes. Should the decision be appealed, one potential question would be whether the City is required to respect the federal DISC structure when the payments are permitted to be deducted for federal tax purposes, and whether the Department has the authority to make an independent determination of a DISC’s economic substance. The decision also raises the important question of whether the City would respect the DISC structure in other cases or whether they are disregarding the deduction outright.
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.