US Inbound: Partnership audit regime raises complexities

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Inbound: Partnership audit regime raises complexities

intl-updates-small.jpg

The Tax Act of 2015 set forth a new centralised partnership audit regime that goes into effect for partnership tax years beginning on and after January 1 2018. A number of issues raised by the new partnership rules affect foreign partners.

Fuller-James-P-100
Forst-David-100

Jim Fuller

David Forst

Regulations were proposed, withdrawn, and re-proposed again in essentially the same form.

Under the new rules all adjustments and items relating to a partnership are determined at the partnership level. Further, any Chapter 1 tax (and penalties and interest) resulting from an adjustment to items under the centralised partnership audit regime is assessed and collected at the partnership level. Therefore, unless an exception applies, if a partnership adjustment results in an imputed underpayment, the partnership must pay the imputed underpayment in the adjustment year.

The statute (Section 6226) permits certain partnerships to elect out of the rule requiring the partnership to pay an adjustment and to shift the responsibility to the partners. Many recent partnership agreements express a preference that this election be made.

Section 6221 also permits a complete election-out from the new rules if certain criteria are met. The election must be made on a timely filed partnership tax return for the year to which the election relates.

There could be uncertainty in respect of both the partnership's and a foreign partner's liability if the partnership has not fully withheld tax on ECI allocated to a foreign partner under Inland Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1446. Under longstanding rules, the foreign partner, of course, is liable for tax on any ECI allocated to it, and the partnership is liable as well to the extent it fails to withhold under IRC Section 1446.

The new rules add extra layers of complexity to this situation. For example, if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) increases the partnership's ECI amount (resulting in under withholding by the partnership in the year under audit) and a partnership makes a Section 6226 election, how must both the foreign partner and the partnership take the adjustment into account? How, and on whom, are penalties calculated?

The new rules raise other issues as well. They require a partner on its individual return to report items consistently with the partnership's treatment. Penalties can apply if the partner does not make such consistent reporting.

One significant, and potentially dangerous, area involves so-called "de facto" partnerships. The IRS sometimes asserts, often in a cross border situation, that a business arrangement is "in fact" a partnership for US tax purposes even if there is no partnership agreement or a legal entity that is commercially treated as a partnership. The parties, therefore, might not think that they have a partnership. In FSAs 1999-1230, for example, the transaction involved the construction of a paper mill in the US. In FSA 200144015 and ILM 200606035 the transaction involved the distribution of products by a US entity for a foreign enterprise.

While IRS examiners are not always successful in making these assertions, as shown in these rulings, there can be a number of consequences of partnership treatment if upheld. The US "partner" could be effectively a § 1446 withholding agent. Partnership elections will not have been made. Now we can add to the list consequences under the centralised partnership new audit rules.

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) and David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Fenwick & West

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The US’s GILTI regime will not be forced upon American multinationals in foreign jurisdictions, Bloomberg has reported; in other news, Ropes & Gray hired two tax partners from Linklaters
APAs should provide a pragmatic means to agree to an arm's-length outcome for an Australian entity and for the ATO, the tax authority said
Overall revenues and average profit per partner also increased in the UK, the ‘big four’ firm revealed
Increasingly complex reporting requirements contributed towards the firm’s growth in tax, it said
Sector-specific business taxes, private equity tax treatment reform and changes to the taxation of non-residents are all on the cards for the UK, authors from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer predict
The UK’s Labour government has an unpopular prime minister, an unpopular chancellor and not a lot of good options as it prepares to deliver its autumn Budget
Awards
The firms picked up five major awards between them at a gala ceremony held at New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Club
The streaming company’s operating income was $400m below expectations following the dispute; in other news, the OECD has released updates for 25 TP country profiles
Software company Oracle has won the right to have its A$250m dispute with the ATO stayed, paving the way for a mutual agreement procedure
If the US doesn't participate in pillar two then global consensus on the project can’t be a reality, tax academic René Matteotti also suggests
Gift this article