Tax Court has held in Castigliola v. Commissioner
(T.C. Memo. 2017-62) that three lawyers who were member-managers of a professional limited liability company (PLLC) classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes were not entitled to exclude a portion of their partnership income from self-employment taxes under the Section 1402(a)(13) limited partner exception.
, three lawyers worked together in a general partnership for several years and eventually organized their law practice as a PLLC under Mississippi law. Although the PLLC did not have a written operating agreement, the lawyers had a compensation agreement that required that each of them to receive a guaranteed payment for the services rendered to the PLLC. The guaranteed payments were commensurate with local legal salaries as determined by a survey of legal salaries in the area. Each partner also received a distributive share of the PLLC’s net profits in excess of the amounts paid out as guaranteed payments. The lawyers reported the guaranteed payments as income from self-employment and subject to self-employment tax. However, they did not report their distributive shares in excess of the guaranteed payments as self-employment income.
The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for the 2008-10 tax years. The IRS argued that the lawyers were not limited partners within the meaning of Section 1402(a)(13) and therefore, their distributive shares in the PLLC were also subject to self-employment tax. Section 1402(a)(13) provides an exclusion from self-employment income for the distributive share of income or loss of a partner, other than guaranteed payments described in Section 707(c) for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services.
The taxpayers petitioned the Tax Court, which agreed with the IRS and held that the exclusion in Section 1402(a)(13) did not apply to the lawyers. The Tax Court looked to Renkemeyer, Campbell, & Weaver, LLP v. Commissioner
, 136 T.C. 137, 148 (2011), where the court recognized that the meaning of “limited partner” is not necessarily confined to the limited partnership context. Applying Renkemeyer
, the Tax Court focused on whether they held positions that were the functional equivalent of a limited partner in a limited partnership. The Tax Court examined state law definitions of a limited partner and noted that that the primary characteristics of a limited partner are: (1) limited liability, and (2) a lack of control over the business.
The Tax Court found that the lawyers had control over their business. All three participated in decisions to hire and fire workers, wrote checks and assumed liabilities for the firm, and participated in decisions regarding their distributive shares. Given the level of control over the business that each partner exercised, the Tax Court held that the lawyers were not limited partners under section 1402(a)(13). The Court declined, however, to impose an accuracy-related penalty based on their reliance on the advice of their CPA and the lack of administrative or judicial guidance defining “limited partner” at the time they prepared their returns.
illustrates the difficulties faced by partners in service partnerships or LLCs who seek to bifurcate their partnership income to avoid self-employment taxes. Though not clear, a footnote in the opinion might suggest that a partner’s full partnership interest could be bifurcated into different interests for purposes of the limited partner exception, such that a portion of the entire interest might qualify as a limited partner interest. The footnote states “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that any member held a different type of interest in the PLLC or held more than one type of interest in the PLLC.” This perhaps suggests that if the facts of the case were different, a part of a member’s entire PLLC interest might qualify as a limited partner interest under section 1402(a)(13). Ultimately, where the facts are similar to those of Castigliola
, even if partners receive a guaranteed payment that is commensurate in amount with local salaries and have limited liability, such partners may be subject to self-employment tax on their entire distributive share of partnership income.
Principal, Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1590
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.