Newsletters
Preparing for Potential Tax Increases Under the Biden Administration
The Biden Administration’s American Families Plan and other tax proposals may complicate the tax landscape for high-income earners. Many of the proposals target taxpayers earning more than $400,000 per year.
The American Families Plan proposals include:
- Increasing the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6% for households making over $400,000;
- Taxing long-term capital gains at 39.6% for households making over $1 million;
- Reducing the step-up in basis for gains in excess of $1 million at death and taxing the gains if the property is not donated to charity;
- Eliminating carried interest and taxing that income at ordinary income rates;
- Permanently extending excess business loss limitation rules; and
- Applying the 3.8% net investment income tax consistently for those making over $400,000.
To add significance to these proposals, President Biden also proposes earmarking $80 billion for IRS audit efforts that will target high-income individuals who have engaged in tax avoidance or other tactics to reduce their taxable income. The additional funding will be accompanied by increased IRS enforcement powers.
In addition, President Biden previously put forth the following proposals during his election campaign:
- Phasing out the 20% qualified business income tax deduction;
- Limiting the benefit of itemized deductions to 28% of their value and restoring the “Pease limitation” cap on itemized deductions;
- Reducing the lifetime estate tax exemption from $11.7 million to $3.5 million (back to 2009 levels) and increasing the estate and gift tax rate from 40% to 45%; and
- Imposing the 12.4% social security payroll tax on earned income above $400,000.
These proposals, although not specifically mentioned in the American Families Plan, continue to be part of the President’s tax agenda.
What Can Taxpayers Do Now?
Given the real possibility of targeted tax increases on the wealthy, as well as the uncertainty of when any increases might take effect, individuals, business owners and family offices should review their current situations to identify opportunities in which their overall federal and state tax liabilities could be minimized.
- Taxpayers should evaluate the extent to which they can time the recognition of income and deductions within a desired tax year. Planning should not only be driven by current and future tax rates but also by the taxpayer’s individual facts and circumstances, including income and cash goals.
- Due to the uncertainty of whether tax legislation will ultimately be passed, and to what extent, tax planning efforts should include multiple “what-if” scenarios to prepare for a range of possible legislative outcomes and effective dates.
- As the future tax landscape takes shape, taxpayers should consider strategies to minimize tax on their capital gains, such as:
- Accelerating capital gains to take advantage of lower rates;
- Managing levels of other taxable income to avoid higher rates on capital gains;
- Timing when tax is due by using or electing out of the installment method; and
- Using deferral strategies such as like-kind exchanges and investments in qualified opportunity zones.
Individuals and families should revisit their estate plans considering President Biden’s tax proposals. Individuals — especially those with large estates — should evaluate the benefits of multi-generational wealth transfers, the use of trusts and other estate planning opportunities, and be prepared to implement strategies in advance of proposals becoming law.
The IRS has issued guidance urging taxpayers to take several important steps in advance of the 2026 federal tax filing season, which opens on January 26. Individuals are encouraged to create or access...
The IRS has confirmed that supplemental housing payments issued to members of the uniformed services in December 2025 are not subject to federal income tax. These payments, classified as “qualified ...
The IRS announced that its Whistleblower Office has launched a new digital Form 211 to make reporting tax noncompliance faster and easier. Further, the electronic option allows individuals to submit i...
The IRS has reminded taxpayers about the legal protections afforded by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Organized into 10 categories, these rights ensure taxpayers can engage with the IRS confidently and...
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has amended the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Program and Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) Filing Requirements...
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has issued detailed guidance addressing filing and withholding obligations applicable to sales or exchanges of Massachusetts real estate with a gross sales pric...
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation added by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals on eligibility for the deduction and how the deduction is determined.
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation added by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals on eligibility for the deduction and how the deduction is determined.
General Information
The FAQs explain what constitutes qualified overtime compensation for purposes of the deduction, including overtime compensation required under section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that exceeds an employee’s regular rate of pay. The FAQs also describe which individuals are covered by and not exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements.
FLSA Overtime Eligibility
The FAQs address how individuals, including federal employees, can determine whether they are FLSA overtime-eligible. For federal employees, eligibility is generally reflected on Standard Form 50 and administered by the Office of Personnel Management, subject to certain exceptions.
Deduction Amount and Limits
The FAQs explain that the deduction is limited to a maximum amount of qualified overtime compensation per return and is subject to phase-out based on modified adjusted gross income. Special filing and identification requirements also apply to claim the deduction.
Reporting and Calculation Rules
The FAQs describe how qualified overtime compensation is reported for tax purposes, including special reporting rules for tax year 2025 and required separate reporting by employers for tax years 2026 and later. The FAQs also outline methods taxpayers may use to calculate the deduction if separate reporting is not provided.
FS-2026-1
Proposed regulations regarding the deduction for qualified passenger vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) and the information reporting requirements for the receipt of interest on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL), Code Sec. 163(h)(4), as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), provides that for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, personal interest does not include QPVLI. Code Sec. 6050AA provides that any person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives interest from an individual aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL must file an information return reporting the receipt of the interest.
Proposed regulations regarding the deduction for qualified passenger vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) and the information reporting requirements for the receipt of interest on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL), Code Sec. 163(h)(4), as added by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), provides that for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, personal interest does not include QPVLI. Code Sec. 6050AA provides that any person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives interest from an individual aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL must file an information return reporting the receipt of the interest.
Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest
QPVLI is deductible by an individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust, including a with respect to a grantor trust or disregarded entity deemed owned by the individual, decedent's estate, or non-grantor trust. The deduction for QPVLI may be taken by taxpayers who itemize deductions and those who take the standard deduction. Lease financing would not be considered a purchase of an applicable passenger vehicle (APV) and, thus, would not be considered a SPVL. QPVLI would not include any amounts paid or accrued with respect to lease financing.
Indebtedness will qualify as an SPVL only to the extent it is incurred for the purchase of an APV and for any other items or amounts customarily financed in an APV purchase transaction and that directly relate to the purchased APV, such as vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales, and vehicle-related fees. Indebtedness is an SPVL only if it was originally incurred by the taxpayer, with an exception provided for a change in obligor due to the obligor's death. Original use begins with the first person that takes delivery of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold, registered, or titled and does not begin with the dealer unless the dealer registers or titles the vehicle to itself.
Personal use is defined to mean use by an individual other than in any trade or business, except for use in the trade or business of performing services as an employee, or for the production of income. An APV is considered purchased for personal use if, at the time of the indebtedness is incurred, the taxpayer expects the APV will be used for personal use by the taxpayer that incurred the indebtedness, or by certain members of that taxpayer's family and household, for more than 50 percent of the time. Rules with respect to interest that is both QPVLI and interest otherwise deductible under Code Sec. 163(a) or other Code section are provided and intended to provide clarity and to prevent taxpayers from claiming duplicative interest deductions. The $10,000 limitation of Code Sec. 163(h)(4)(C)(i) applies per federal tax return. Therefore, the maximum deduction on a joint return is $10,000. If two taxpayers have a status of married filing separately, the $10,000 limitation would apply separately to each return.
Information Reporting Requirements
If the interest recipient receives from any individual at least $600 of interest on an SPVL for a calendar year, the interest recipient would need to file an information return with the IRS and furnish a statement to the payor or record on the SPVL. Definitions of terms used in the proposed rules are provided in Prop. Reg. §1.6050AA-1(b).
Assignees of the right to receive interest payments from the lender of record are permitted to rely on the information in the contract if it is sufficient to satisfy its information reporting obligations. The assignee may choose to make arrangements to obtain information regarding personal use from the obligor, lender of record, or by other means. The written statement provided to the payor of record must include the information that was reported to the IRS and identify the statement as important tax information that is being furnished to the IRS and state that penalties may apply for overstated interest deductions.
Effective Dates and Requests for Comments
The regulations are proposed to apply to tax years in which taxpayers may deduct QPVLI pursuant to Code Sec. 163(h)(4). Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 163 with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner. Likewise, interest recipients may rely on the proposed regulations with respect to indebtedness incurred for the purchase of an APV after December 31, 2024, and on or before the date the regulations are published as final regulations, so long as the taxpayer follows the proposed regulations in their entirety and in a consistent manner.
Written or electronic comments must be received by February 2, 2026. A public hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2026.
Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-113515-25
IR 2025-129
The IRS has released interim guidance to apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68, with some modifications, to the the acquisition date requirement for property qualifying for 100 percent bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k)(1), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). In addition, taxpayers may apply modified rules under to the elections to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, the transitional election to apply the bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA, and the addition of qualified sound recording productions to qualified property under Code Sec, 168(k)(2). Proposed regulations for Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 are forthcoming.
The IRS has released interim guidance to apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68, with some modifications, to the the acquisition date requirement for property qualifying for 100 percent bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k)(1), as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). In addition, taxpayers may apply modified rules under to the elections to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, the transitional election to apply the bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA, and the addition of qualified sound recording productions to qualified property under Code Sec, 168(k)(2). Proposed regulations for Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 are forthcoming.
Under OBBBA qualified property acquired and specified plants planted or grafted after January 19, 2025, qualify for 100 percent bonus depreciation. When determining whether such property meets the acquisition date requirements, taxpayers may generally apply the rules under Regs. §§1.168(k)-2 and 1.1502-68 by substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017” and “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017” each place it appears. In addition taxpayers should substitute “100 percent” for “the applicable percentage” each place it appears, except for the examples provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(g)(2)(iv). Specifically, these rules apply to the acquisition date (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5) and Reg. §1.1502-68(a) through (d)) and the component election for components of larger self-constructed property (Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(c)).
With regards to the Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election to claim 100-percent bonus depreciation on specified plants, taxpayer may follow the rules set forth in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(2). Taxpayers making the transitional election to apply the lower bonus rate in effect in 2025, prior to the enactment of OBBBA may follow Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(3) after substituting “January 19, 2025” for “September 27, 2017”, “January 20, 2025” for “September 28, 2017”, and “40 percent” (“60 percent” in the case of Longer production period property or certain noncommercial aircrafts) for “50 percent”, and applicable Form 4562, Depreciation and Amortization,” for “2017 Form 4562, “Depreciation and Amortization,” each place it appears .
For qualified sound recording productions acquired before January 20, 2025, in a tax year ending after July 4, 2025, taxpayers should apply the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2 as though a qualified sound recording production (as defined in Code Sec. 181(f)) is included in the list of qualified property provided in Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(2)(i). If electing out of bonus depreciation for a qualified sound recording production under Code Sec. 168(k)(7) a taxpayer should follow the rules under Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(f)(1) as if the definition of class of property is expanded to each separate production of a qualified sound recording production.
Taxpayers may rely on this guidance for property placed in service in tax years beginning before the date the forthcoming proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.
The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:
- business,
- medical, and
- charitable purposes
Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.
The IRS released the optional standard mileage rates for 2026. Most taxpayers may use these rates to compute deductible costs of operating vehicles for:
- business,
- medical, and
- charitable purposes
Some members of the military may also use these rates to compute their moving expense deductions.
2026 Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rates for 2026 are:
- 72.5 cents per mile for business uses;
- 20.5 cents per mile for medical uses; and
- 14 cents per mile for charitable uses.
Taxpayers may use these rates, instead of their actual expenses, to calculate their deductions for business, medical or charitable use of their own vehicles.
FAVR Allowance for 2026
For purposes of the fixed and variable rate (FAVR) allowance, the maximum standard automobile cost for vehicles places in service after 2026 is:
- $61,700 for passenger automobiles, and
- $61,700 for trucks and vans.
Employers can use a FAVR allowance to reimburse employees who use their own vehicles for the employer’s business.
2026 Mileage Rate for Moving Expenses
The standard mileage rate for the moving expense deduction is 20.5 cents per mile. To claim this deduction, the taxpayer must be:
- a member of the Armed Forces of the United States,
- on active military duty, and
- moving under an military order and incident to a permanent change of station
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 suspended the moving expense deduction for all other taxpayers until 2026.
Unreimbursed Employee Travel Expenses
For most taxpayers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act suspended the miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses. However, certain taxpayers may still claim an above-the-line deduction for these expenses. These taxpayers include:
- members of a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces,
- state or local government officials paid on a fee basis, and
- performing artists with relatively low incomes.
Notice 2025-5, is superseded.
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the limitation on the deduction for business interest expense under Code Sec. 163(j). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and reflect statutory changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, and the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the limitation on the deduction for business interest expense under Code Sec. 163(j). The FAQs provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and reflect statutory changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the CARES Act, and the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.
General Information
The FAQs explain the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, identify taxpayers subject to the limitation, and describe the gross receipts test used to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies as an exempt small business.
Excepted Trades or Businesses
The FAQs address trades or businesses that are excepted from the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, regulated utility trades or businesses, and services performed as an employee.
Determining the Section 163(j) Limitation Amount
The FAQs explain how to calculate the Code Sec. 163(j) limitation, including the definitions of business interest expense and business interest income, the computation of adjusted taxable income, and the treatment of disallowed business interest expense carryforwards.
CARES Act Changes
The FAQs describe temporary modifications to Code Sec. 163(j) made by the CARES Act, including increased adjusted taxable income percentages and special rules and elections applicable to partnerships and partners for taxable years beginning in 2019 and 2020.
One, Big, Beautiful Bill Changes
The FAQs outline amendments made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, including changes affecting the calculation of adjusted taxable income for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, and the application of Code Sec. 163(j) before interest capitalization provisions for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing updates to the Premium Tax Credit. The FAQs clarified changes to repayment rules, the removal of outdated provisions and how the IRS will treat updated guidance.
The IRS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing updates to the Premium Tax Credit. The FAQs clarified changes to repayment rules, the removal of outdated provisions and how the IRS will treat updated guidance.
Removal of Repayment Limitations
For tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, limitations on the repayment of excess advance payments of the Premium Tax Credit no longer applied.
Previously Applicable Provisions
Premium Tax Credit rules that applied only to tax years 2020 and 2021 were no longer applicable and were removed from the FAQs.
Updated FAQs
The FAQs were updated throughout for minor style clarifications, topic updates and question renumbering.
Reliance on FAQs
The FAQs were issued to provide general information to taxpayers and tax professionals and were not published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
Legal Authority
If an FAQ was inconsistent with the law as applied to a taxpayer’s specific circumstances, the law controlled the taxpayer’s tax liability.
Penalty Relief
Taxpayers who reasonably and in good faith relied on the FAQs were not subject to penalties that included a reasonable cause standard for relief, to the extent reliance resulted in an underpayment of tax.
The IRS issued guidance providing penalty relief to individuals and corporations that make a valid Code Sec. 1062 election to defer taxes on gains from the sale of qualified farmland. Taxpayers who opt to pay their applicable net tax liability in four annual installments will not be penalized under sections 6654 or 6655 for underpaying estimated taxes in the year of the sale.
The IRS issued guidance providing penalty relief to individuals and corporations that make a valid Code Sec. 1062 election to defer taxes on gains from the sale of qualified farmland. Taxpayers who opt to pay their applicable net tax liability in four annual installments will not be penalized under sections 6654 or 6655 for underpaying estimated taxes in the year of the sale.
The relief permits these taxpayers to exclude 75 percent of the deferred tax from their estimated tax calculations for that year. However, 25 percent of the tax liability must still be paid by the return due date for the year of the sale. The IRS emphasized that this waiver applies automatically if the taxpayer qualifies and does not self-report the penalty.
Taxpayers who have already reported a penalty or receive an IRS notice can request abatement by filing Form 843, noting the relief under Notice 2026-3. This measure aligns with the policy objectives of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which introduced section 1062 to support farmland continuity by facilitating sales to qualified farmers. The IRS also plans to update relevant forms and instructions to reflect the changes, ensuring clarity for those seeking relief.
The IRS has extended the transition period provided in Rev. Rul. 2025-4, I.R.B. 2025-6, for states administering paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs and employers participating in such programs with respect to the portion of medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual that is attributable to employer contributions, for an additional year.
The IRS has extended the transition period provided in Rev. Rul. 2025-4, I.R.B. 2025-6, for states administering paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs and employers participating in such programs with respect to the portion of medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual that is attributable to employer contributions, for an additional year.
The IRS found that states with PMFL statuses have requested that the transition period be extended for an additional year or that the effective date be amended because the required changes cannot occur within the current timeline. For this reason, calendar year 2026 will be regarded as an additional transition period for purposes of IRS enforcement and administration with respect to the following components:
-
For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026,with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to follow the income tax withholding and reporting requirements applicable to third-party sick pay, and (b)consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties under Code Sec. 6721 for failure to file a correct information return or under Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish a correct payee statement to the payee; and
-
For medical leave benefits a state pays to an individual in calendar year 2026, with respect to the portion of the medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions, (a) a state or an employer is not required to comply with § 32.1 and related Code sections (as well as similar requirements under § 3306) during thecalendar year; (b) a state or an employer is not required to withhold and pay associatedtaxes; and (c) consequently, a state or employer would not be liable for any associated penalties.
This notice is effective for medical leave benefits paid from states to individuals during calendar year 2026.
Addressing health care will be the key legislative priority a 2026 starts, leaving little chance that Congress will take up any significant tax-related legislation in the coming election year, at least until health care is taken care of.
Addressing health care will be the key legislative priority a 2026 starts, leaving little chance that Congress will take up any significant tax-related legislation in the coming election year, at least until health care is taken care of.
Top legislative staff from the tax writing committees in Congress (House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee) were all in basic agreement during a January 7, 2026, panel discussion at the 2026 D.C. Bar Tax Conference that health care would be tackled first.
“I will say that my judgement, and this is not the official party line, by that my judgement is that a deal on health care is going to have to unlock before there’s a meaningful tax vehicle,” Andrew Grossman, chief tax counsel for the House Ways And Means Committee Democratic staff, said, adding that it is difficult to see Democratic members working on tax extenders and other provisions when 15 million are about to lose their health insurance.
Sean Clerget, chief tax counsel for the Ways and Means GOP staff, added that “our view’s consistent with what Andrew [Grossman] said, adding that committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) “would be very open to having a tax vehicle whether or not there’s a health care deal, but obviously we need bipartisan cooperation to move something like that. And so, Andrew’s comments are sort of very important to the outlook on this.”
Even some of the smaller items that may have bipartisan support could be held up as the parties work to find common ground on health care legislation.
“It’s hard to see some of the smaller tax items that are hanging out there getting over the finish line without a deal on health, Sarah Schaefer, chief tax advisor to the Democratic staff of the Senate Finance Committee, said. “And I think our caucus will certainly hold out for that.”
Randy Herndon, deputy chief tax counsel for the Finance Committee Republican staff, added that he agreed with Clerget and said that Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) would be “open to a tax vehicle absent any health care deal, but understand, again, the bipartisan cooperation that would be required.”
No Planned OBBBA Part 2
Clerget said that currently there no major reconciliation bill on the horizon to follow up on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but “I’ve always thought that if there were to be a second reconciliation bill, it would need to be very narrow for a very specific purpose, rather than a large kind of open, multicommittee, big bill.”
Herndon added that Chairman Crapo’s “current focus is on pursuing potential bipartisan priorities in the Finance Committee jurisdiction,” noting that a lot of the GOP priorities were addressed in the OBBBA “and our members are very invested in seeing that through the implementation process.”
Of the things we can expect the committees to work on, Herndon identified areas ripe for legislative activity in the coming year, including crypto and tax administration bills and other focused issues surrounding affordability, but GOP members will more be paying attention to the implementation of OBBBA.
Schaefer said that Finance Committee Democrats will maintain a focus on the child tax credit as well as working to get reinstated clean energy credits that were allowed to expire.
Clerget said that of the things that could happen on this legislative calendar is on the taxation of digital assets, stating that “I think there’s a lot of interest in establishing clear tax rules in the digital asset space.… I think we have a good prospect of getting bipartisan cooperation on the tax side of digital assets.”
He also said there has been a lot of bipartisan cooperation on tax administration in 2025, suggesting that the parties could keep working on improving the taxpayer experience in 2026.
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a limited partner in a state-law limited partnership that has limited liability. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310).
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a limited partner in a state-law limited partnership that has limited liability. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310).
Background
A limited liability limited partnership operated a business consulting firm, and was owned by several limited partners and one general partner. For the tax years at issue, the limited partnership allocated all of its ordinary business income to its limited partners. Based on the limited partnership tax exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), the limited partnership excluded the limited partners’ distributive shares of partnership income or loss from its calculation of net earnings from self-employment during those years, and reported zero net earnings from self-employment.
The IRS adjusted the limited partnership's net earnings from self-employment, and determined that the distributive share exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply because none of the limited partnership’s limited partners counted as "limited partners" for purposes of the statutory exception. The Tax Court upheld the adjustments, stating it was bound by Soroban.
Limited Partners and Self Employment Tax
Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) excludes from a partnership's calculation of net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments in Code Sec. 707(c) to that partner 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.
In Soroban, the Tax Court determined that Congress had enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) to exclude earnings from a mere investment, and intended for the phrase “limited partners, as such” to refer to passive investors. Thus, the Tax Court there held that the limited partner exception of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply to a partner who is limited in name only, and that determining whether a partner is a limited partner in name only required an inquiry into the limited partner's functions and roles.
Passive Investor Treatment
Here, the Fifth Circuit rejected the interpretation that "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) refers only to passive investors in a limited partnership. Reviewing the text of the statute, the court determined that dictionaries at the time of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13)’s enactment defined "limited partner" as a partner in a limited partnership that has limited liability and is not bound by the obligations of the partnership. Also, longstanding interpretation by the Social Security Administration and the IRS had confirmed that a "limited partner" is a partner with limited liability in a limited partnership. IRS partnership tax return instructions had for decades defined "limited partner" as one whose potential personal liability for partnership debts was limited to the amount of money or other property that the partner contributed or was required to contribute to the partnership.
The Fifth Circuit determined that the interpretation of "limited partner" as a mere "passive investor" in a limited partnership is wrong. The court stated that the passive-investor interpretation makes little sense of the "guaranteed payments" clause in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), and that the text of the statute contemplates that "limited partners" would provide actual services to the partnership and thus participate in partnership affairs. A strict passive-investor interpretation that defined "limited partner" in a way that prohibited him from providing any services to the partnership would make the "guaranteed payments" clause superfluous.
Further, the court stated that had Congress wished to only exclude passive investors from the tax, it could have easily written the exception to do so, but it did not do so in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Additionally, the passive investor interpretation would require the IRS to balance an infinite number of factors in performing its "functional analysis test," and would make it more complicated for limited partners to determine their tax liability.
The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court's conclusion in Soroban that by adding the words "as such" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), Congress had made clear that the limited partner exception applies only to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner. Adding "as such" did not restrict or narrow the class of limited partners, and does not upset the ordinary meaning of "limited partner."
Vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.
