Close
Close

‘Nominal’ partnership interest by pass-through insufficient for exception to TEFRA

RFP
The Tax Court ruled April 7 that a pass-through partner’s interest in a partnership, while nominal, still did not qualify the partnership to fall under the small partnership exception to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) procedures.

In Brumbaugh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2015-65 (April 7, 2015), the petitioner, Brumbaugh, was an individual partner in a partnership (Panorama LLC), holding a 59.99% interest. Another individual partner held a 39.99% interest, while a third partner, a partnership (Lynx), held a 0.02% interest. On his 2007 income tax return, Brumbaugh claimed an interest deduction, which was disallowed by the IRS. The IRS also determined certain losses were subject to the Section 469 passive activity loss rules and asserted an accuracy-related penalty under Section 6662(a). None of the adjustments set forth in the notice of deficiency to Brumbaugh related to deductions claimed by Panorama.

Brumbaugh argued that he was allowed to deduct additional losses from Panorama that were not on his Schedule K-1 and that he had erroneously claimed the disallowed interest deduction. Rather, his interest deduction should have been reported by Panorama and flowed up to him.

Brumbaugh did not seek an administrative adjustment under Section 6227(a). The Tax Court said the time for an administrative adjustment had now expired. Accordingly, the tax treatment of the partnership items — such as an interest deduction — became final in accordance with the partnership return filed by Panorama, under the TEFRA rules.

In Tax Court, Brumbaugh argued that the TEFRA rules did not apply, because in substance, Lynx’s ownership in Panorama was nominal. Accordingly, he argued, Panorama should qualify under the small partnership exception to TEFRA.

The Tax Court ruled that there is no “de minimis exception” for pass-through partners. The court also pointed to Panorama’s Form 1065, which answered “yes” to the question “Are any partners in this partnership also partnerships?” The court also pointed to the Schedule K-1 issued to Lynx, which identifies Lynx as a partnership.


Contacts
David Auclair
+1 202 521 1515
david.auclair@us.gt.com

Shamik Trivedi
+1 202 521 1511
shamik.trivedi@us.gt.com


Tax professional standards statement
This document 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 subject of this document, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss the 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 document may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this document 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.