In a recent Internal Legal Memorandum (ILM 201601011
) to the field, the IRS National Office determined that an aircraft was held for productive use in a trade or business for purposes of applying the Section 1031 nonrecognition provisions. The only activity of the partnership at issue was to lease the aircraft to a related party that used the aircraft in its business activities. These business activities were mainly carried out by two executives who each owned interests in the related party and together owned 100% of the partnership.
The partnership in the ILM exchanged an aircraft for a replacement aircraft and applied Section 1031. The lease payments for the relinquished aircraft were fair market rental value, and the lease payments for the replacement aircraft were below market. For both aircraft, the lease payments were intended to cover the carrying costs of the aircraft and not to generate meaningful economic profit.
The field determined that the taxpayer did not have a valid Section 1031 exchange because the partnership did not hold the replacement or relinquished property for “productive use in a trade or business.” This term is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or regulations, and so the field looked to apply Section 183, which applies to limit the deductions of an individual or an S corporation engaging in an activity without profit motive. The IRS National Office concluded that there was no authority that would suggest that the standards of Section 183 should be used to evaluate whether property is held for productive use for purposes of Section 1031.
Instead, the National Office looked to the fact that many businesses hold and use properties in a way that do not and could not generate profit. Even in that situation the property is still held for productive use in the business. Additionally, the National Office pointed out that many businesses, for any number of valid nontax reasons, opt to hold property (including and especially aircraft) in a separate entity, and this should not preclude the partnership from being able to take advantage of Section 1031. They National Office reasoned that the taxpayer shouldn’t get a different answer if the aircraft or the partnership had been owned 100% by the related party.
Accordingly, the memo concludes that the replacement and the relinquished aircraft are eligible for Section 1031 because they meet the requirement that they be held for productive use in a trade or business.
Interestingly, the memo includes an assumption about whether the leasing partnership should be respected as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. It appears that the field did not raise the issue of whether the partnership is a valid partnership and not a sham entity, but the memo notes that if the partnership is a sham entity, then the two senior executives, and not the partnership, are the owners of the aircraft. The memo explains that “[i]n that case, our analysis would be different than provided below and the conclusion may be different as well.” Thus, though the memo assumes that the partnership is a valid partnership, the memo seems to suggest that there may be a question about whether there are situations in which, based on the facts, the leasing partnership faces a risk of not being respected as a valid partnership.
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 “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.