The U.S. Tax Court held that a shareholder of several S corporations did not receive any basis in indebtedness to the S corporations merely from signing as a co-borrower on loans made directly to the various S corporations.
In Hargis v. Commissioner
, T.C. Memo. 2016-232, a husband and wife team ran a business that owned and operated nursing homes. The business was structured so that the real property, facilities and equipment of each nursing home was owned by a limited liability company (LLC), while the day-to-day operations of each nursing home was managed by a corresponding S corporation. The husband was the sole shareholder in the various S corporations and the wife owned significant interests in the LLCs together with certain other individuals.
The business strategy involved taking over distressed nursing homes and turning them into profitable businesses. Due to this model, the older S corporations owned by the husband were profitable, while the newer S corporations tended to run up large losses from the costs of restoring recently acquired nursing homes. These newer S corporations were funded with loans from the LLCs (partially owned by the wife), loans from the more profitable S corporations (wholly owned by the husband), and loans from third party banks. For all of the LLC loans and S corporation loans, and for some of the bank loans, the Tax Court determined that the husband was a co-borrower in his individual capacity.
Several of the newer S corporations generated losses, which were subsequently deducted by the husband on his individual return. The IRS disallowed certain of those deductions on the grounds that the husband did not have sufficient stock or debt basis in the relevant S corporations to support the deduction. Section 1366(d)(1) limits the amount of S corporation losses that can be taken into account by a shareholder to the shareholder’s adjusted basis in the S corporation stock plus the shareholder’s adjusted basis in any indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder.
The husband argued signing as a co-borrower on the loans was economically equivalent to the husband’s borrowing the money personally and subsequently loaning the proceeds to the various S corporations. Under this argument, the husband would have increased his debt basis for purposes of Section 1366(d)(1) because of the direct loan to the S corporation. In support of this position, the husband noted that the S corporations were thinly capitalized and that the lenders wanted the petitioner to be liable for repayment in the event that the S corporations defaulted.
The Tax Court sided with the IRS and rejected the husband’s attempt to recast the loans as going from the lender to the husband and then from the husband to the various S corporations. The Tax Court considered the actual form of the loans and applied various “economic outlay” case law. (Note that the facts in the case pre-date the finalized “back-to-back loan” regulations promulgated July 23, 2014 (T.D. 9682).) The Tax Court noted that the husband was never required to personally make any payments on the loans; none of the proceeds of the loans were advanced to the husband individually; none of the notes were collateralized by the husband’s own property; and none of the lenders looked to the husband as the primary obligor on the loans received by the S corporation. Thus, the Tax Court ruled that the husband was unable to claim losses from certain S corporations because he lacked sufficient basis under Section 1366.
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1502
Managing Director, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 861 4116
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.