Close
Close

Partners’ claimed amortization deductions denied

RFP
Tax Hot Topics newsletter The Tax Court recently reiterated in Watts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2020-144 (Oct. 15, 2020), that two brothers were not entitled to an amortization deduction or abandonment loss in connection with the sale of their partnership interests.

In a prior opinion, Watts v. Commissioner (Watts I), T.C. Memo 2017-114 (June 14, 2017), the Tax Court had determined that the taxpayers were not entitled to an ordinary loss for abandoning their partnership interests. In a supplemental opinion, Watts v. Commissioner (Watts II), 747 F. App’x 837 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand from the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the Tax Court applied the Danielson rule to dismiss the taxpayers’ attempt to recharacterize a sale transaction in order to secure an amortization deduction. This supplemental opinion illustrates the limits placed on taxpayers who seek to characterize a transaction for tax purposes in a manner that conflicts with the form reflected in the relevant legal documents.

The taxpayers in Watts were two brothers who held a minority, common interest in a partnership which operated a chain of golf pro shops. A private equity firm, Wellspring, held an approximately 80% preferred interest in the partnership and, under the terms of the partnership agreement, was entitled to a preferred return before the holders of the common interests would be entitled to a portion of the proceeds from the sale or liquidation of the partnership. In 2007, Wellspring and the common partners executed a purchase agreement to sell 100% of the partnership to Sun Capital, another private equity firm. All the net sales proceeds were paid directly to Wellspring. The taxpayers and the other common partners received nothing for their partnership interests. For a more in-depth description of the facts, see our story, “Tax Court rules that losses from abandonment of partnership interest are capital.

On remand, in Watts II, the taxpayers alleged that in order to induce Wellspring to sell to Sun Capital (as opposed to another potential buyer), and thereby preserve their employees’ jobs and certain rental income streams they received from the partnership, the taxpayers agreed to surrender to Wellspring funds they were entitled to receive on the sale of the partnership (referred to as the “incentive theory”). According to the taxpayers, by paying their portion of the sales proceeds to Wellspring, they created an intangible asset that they were entitled to amortize. In the alternative, the taxpayers argued that they were entitled to an ordinary loss from the abandonment of their partnership interests. Both theories were rejected by the Tax Court in Watts I.

On appeal, the taxpayers argued, and the IRS agreed, that in rejecting the incentive theory, the Tax Court incorrectly assumed certain facts about the parties’ conduct under the partnership agreement. On remand, however, the Tax Court again rejected the taxpayers’ incentive theory. According to the terms of the partnership agreement and the purchase agreement, Wellspring was entitled to 100% of the proceeds of the sale of the partnership to Sun Capital.

The 11th Circuit has expressly adopted the rule in Danielson v. Commissioner, 378 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967), which generally provides that taxpayers may not challenge the form of their transaction where the agreement for a transaction unambiguously indicates how the transaction should be treated for tax purposes unless they can show that the form would be unenforceable because of mistake, undue influence, fraud, duress or the like. In Watts II, the Tax Court ruled that, under the Danielson rule, the taxpayers were precluded from arguing that they were in fact entitled to a portion of the sales proceeds for tax purposes. Because the taxpayers were not entitled to any portion of the sale proceeds, they could not have agreed to surrender those proceeds to Wellspring as suggested by the incentive theory. The Tax Court did not further consider whether, if substantiated, a payment to Wellspring would have generated an amortization deduction for the taxpayers.

While taxpayers have latitude in how they choose to structure their affairs, the Watts case demonstrates the risks faced by taxpayers and practitioners who seek to pursue a tax treatment for a transaction that is inconsistent with the unambiguous legal form agreed to by the parties in effectuating that transaction.

Contacts:
Grace Kim
Principal, Partnerships
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1590

Jose Carrasco
Senior Manager, Partnerships
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1552

Whit Cocanower
Senior Associate
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1541

Sarah Barlow
Senior Associate
Washington National Tax Office
T +1 202 521 1505

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.