Webinar Slides: New Partnership Audit Rules - Planning Ideas and Practical Observations

#cbizmhmwebinar 1
CBIZ & MHM
Executive Education Series™
New Partnership Audit Rules: Planning
Ideas and Practical Observations
Nate Smith
February 8 and 15, 2017

#cbizmhmwebinar 2
About Us
• Together, CBIZ & MHM are a Top Ten accounting provider
• Offices in most major markets
• Tax, audit and attest and advisory services
• Over 2,900 professionals nationwide
A member of Kreston International
A global network of independent
accounting firms
MHM (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.) is an independent CPA firm that provides audit, review and attest services, and works closely with CBIZ, a business consulting,
tax and financial services provider. CBIZ and MHM are members of Kreston International Limited, a global network of independent accounting firms.

#cbizmhmwebinar 3
Before We Get Started…
• To view this webinar in full screen mode, click on view options
in the upper right hand corner.
• Click the Support tab for technical assistance.
• If you have a question during the presentation, please use the
Q&A feature at the bottom of your screen.

#cbizmhmwebinar 4
CPE Credit
This webinar is eligible for CPE
credit. To receive credit, you will
need to answer periodic
participation markers
throughout the webinar.
External participants will receive
their CPE certificate via email
immediately following the
webinar.

#cbizmhmwebinar 5
Disclaimer
The information in this Executive Education Series
course is a brief summary and may not include all
the details relevant to your situation.
Please contact your service provider to further
discuss the impact on your business.

CBIZ & MHM 6
Nathan Smith is a Director in the CBIZ National Tax Office, bringing over
19 years of experience in public accounting to provide technical support
and strategic solutions for the firm’s tax practice. Nathan leads the
development of practice aids and tactical approaches used in
responding to industry and Federal tax developments in a variety of
subject matter areas. Nathan also consults nationally to facilitate
delivery of client service opportunities and solutions, contributes as an
author and editor to the firm's tax thought leadership publications and
assists with the development and implementation of national tax
policies and procedures.
727.572.1400 • nate.smith@cbiz.com
Nathan Smith, CPA
Director
Presenter

#cbizmhmwebinar 7
Topics for Today
• Overview of New Partnership Audit Rules
• Example 1: Net increase from exam; one partner leaves
• Thoughts About Revised Partnership and LLC Member
Agreements
• Example 2: Net increase from exam; prior distribution gain
• Example 3: Re-allocation from exam; decrease partner
leaves
• Example 4: Re-allocation from exam; increase partner
leaves

#cbizmhmwebinar 8
Overview of New Rules

#cbizmhmwebinar 9
Overview of New Partnership Audit Rules
• IRS facing significant challenges in conducting audits
under existing TEFRA rules
• Identification of Tax Matters Partner
• Administration of required notice and participation rights
• Processing of examination adjustments for ultimate partners
• Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (“BBA”) signed into law on
November 2, 2015
• New audit rules generally apply to partnership tax years
beginning on or after December 31, 2017
• Many strategies to consider under new rules; specific
concerns of partners effectively require every partnership
and LLC to amend its partnership/member agreement

#cbizmhmwebinar 10
• New rules fundamentally change the IRS examination and
tax collection process for partnerships
• Underpaid tax, interest and penalties resulting from
unfavorable exam adjustments (“imputed underpayment”)
assessed against and collected from partnership itself
• Payable by partnership during the “adjustment year,” which
is the year when “final partnership adjustment” IRS notice is
mailed; reported on partnership’s adjustment year tax filing
• Exam adjustments not resulting in imputed underpayment
(favorable adjustments) do not produce a refund; instead
are reported as income adjustments in partnership’s
adjustment year tax filing

#cbizmhmwebinar 11
• Eligible partnerships provided with annual election to “opt
out” of new rules. Eligible partnerships:
• Cannot issue more than 100 “statements” (Schedules K-1)
• Cannot have a partner that is a partnership or a trust
• Under proposed regulations, cannot have a partner that is a
disregarded entity, nominee, or non-partner’s estate
• Can have foreign partners, if such partners have TIN, and
would be treated as C Corporations if they were domestic
• Under proposed regulations, shareholders of S corporation
partners count toward 100-statement limit
Does the partnership always want to opt out? How
will it ensure ineligible partners are not admitted?

#cbizmhmwebinar 12
• Tax Matters Partner eliminated
• Partnership Representative (“PR”) installed and given
exclusive authority to bind the partnership and its
partners to strategies employed during audit
• PR can be any person (partner or non-partner), as long as
the person has a “substantial presence in the United States”
• Partners have no rights to participate in audit, receive notice
of key audit stages, or contest audit results
• Under proposed regulations, PR can be entity, as long as
U.S. individual also is identified to act for entity
• IRS can name a PR if a designation is not in effect
Do partners want separately-negotiated rights to
notification and participation?

#cbizmhmwebinar 13
• An imputed underpayment is calculated by netting exam
adjustments of similar character, and multiplying the
netted positive amounts by the highest rate of tax in
effect (for any type of taxpayer) for the year to which the
adjustment relates
• Adjustments to partnership’s credit items then increase or
decrease the tentative calculation
• Remember, netted non-positive amounts reported as
income adjustments in partnership’s adjustment year tax
filing
• Under proposed regulations, decrease side of reallocations
and recharacterizations do not net; treated as separate non-
positive adjustments (picked up in adjustment year)

#cbizmhmwebinar 14
• PR can request alternative to the default imputed
underpayment calculation, using “modification”
procedures, or using a “push-out” election
• Modification procedures and push-out elections operate to
reduce or eliminate a portion or all of the partnership’s
liability for an imputed underpayment
• The PR is the only person with IRS authority to choose a
modification procedure or to make a push-out election
• Proposed regulations provide for the ability to bifurcate a
general imputed underpayment into multiple specific
imputed underpayments, with any modification procedure
or push-out election generally available to each
Will the PR be obligated to choose a procedure that
benefits certain partners?

#cbizmhmwebinar 15
• Modification procedures: Amended returns
• Amended returns for “reviewed year” (the year pertaining
to the exam adjustment) filed by some or all partners
• Amended returns can include non-positive adjustments
• Default imputed underpayment does not include exam
adjustments taken into account on amended returns
• In the case of a reallocation adjustments, all affected partners
must file amended returns
How will former partners be bound by this when PR
determines it is in the current partners’ interest?

#cbizmhmwebinar 16
• Modification procedures: Amended returns (cont’d)
• Under proposed regulations, amended returns must also be
filed for “intervening years” if affected by adjustment
• Under proposed regulations, amended returns can be filed
by “indirect partners” (e.g., owners of S Corporation
partners and Partnership partners) to satisfy modification
criteria for adjustments allocable to pass-through partners
• Under proposed regulations, pass-through partners (e.g.,
partnership partners and S corporation partners) can elect
to file an amended return that calculates an entity-level tax
using a safe-harbor rate equal to the maximum rate for any
type of partner, instead of providing for amended returns
from indirect partners

#cbizmhmwebinar 17
• Modification Procedures: Rate Modification
• Rate of tax used to compute imputed underpayment is
reduced when shown that the highest tax rate for particular
partners is lower than the highest rate for any partner
• C Corporations have a maximum rate of 35%
• Individuals have a maximum rate of 20% for the portion of
adjustments allocable to qualified dividend income or long-
term capital gains
• S Corporation partners considered to be individuals
• Under proposed regulations, partnership partners are
eligible to substantiate rate modification to the extent
adjustments are allocable to its own partners who have the
above criteria

#cbizmhmwebinar 18
• Modification Procedures: Tax-exempt Partners
• Rate of tax used to compute imputed underpayment is
reduced when shown it is allocable to a “tax-exempt”
partner as defined under IRC §168(h)(2)
• Under proposed regulations, the tax-exempt partner
must also demonstrate its adjustment is not subject to
unrelated business income tax
Is there a procedure to provide for dynamic data
sharing so PR can have timely access to this data?

#cbizmhmwebinar 19
• Push-out election
• In lieu of imputed underpayment, partnership elects to have
the exam adjustment “pushed out” to all reviewed year
partners affected by adjustment
• No amended returns filed; reviewed year returns recomputed
with adjustment to identify tax increase
• Tax increase payable by reviewed year partners during the year
that the adjustments are reported
• Interest on underpaid tax includes a 2% surcharge
• Non-positive adjustments do not result in tax decrease
• Under proposed regulations, non-positive adjustments
allocated to reviewed year partners (not adjustment year)
• Corollary adjustments to “intervening years” also required

#cbizmhmwebinar 20
• Push-out election (cont’d)
• Proposed regulations reserve on issue of allowing exam
adjustment push out to indirect partners (e.g., owners
of partnership partners and S corporation partners)
• Proposed regulations provide that pass-through
partners are treated as individuals (thereby taxed at
entity level)
• Proposed regulations allow for any partner (including a
pass-through partner) impacted by push-out election to
elect a “safe harbor” tax calculation, which permits the
partner to simply use the maximum rate of tax with
respect to a push out adjustment, and removes the
need to calculate intervening year adjustments

#cbizmhmwebinar 21
• Other modifications
• Proposed regulations provide for additional types of
modification procedures to default imputed
underpayment
• Publicly-traded partnerships demonstrating a net
decrease to passive activity losses
• Adjustment relates to “deficiency dividends” of a
regulated investment company or a real estate
investment trust
• Adjustment taken into account by a partner in a closing
agreement with IRS (similar effect to amended return)

#cbizmhmwebinar 22
Example 1
Net increase from exam; one partner leaves

#cbizmhmwebinar 23
Ex. 1: Net increase from exam; one partner leaves
• Partnership “P” is formed during Year 1 by Partners “A”
and “B,” with agreement to share 50/50
• Assume the beginning tax basis of A’s and B’s partnership
interest is $0 each
• P has Year 1 income of $1,000, allocated 50/50 to A and B
• P has Year 2 income of $0, and during Year 2, A sells her
entire interest in P to new Partner “C” for $600
• A recognizes $100 gain on sale (the difference between her
Year 2 sales proceeds and basis of $500 that results from
her Year 1 and Year 2 allocations from P)
• P’s Year 1 tax return is audited during Year 3, where Year 1
income is re-determined to be $1,200 instead of $1,000

#cbizmhmwebinar 24
• Under the default imputed underpayment rule, tax on the
$200 unfavorable adjustment is paid by P during Year 3
• B and C economically bear the cost of the imputed
underpayment, which is “unfair” to C
• Under the “push-out” election, the $200 unfavorable
adjustment is pushed out to A and B, who re-compute
their Year 1 taxes to account for the adjustment, and then
report the resulting tax on their Year 3 tax returns
• “Fairer” to C, in that A remains responsible for the tax
increase attributable to A
• A and B are subject to the 2% interest surcharge
• BUT, what about “intervening year” adjustments?

#cbizmhmwebinar 25
• Under the “push-out” election, A must include
“intervening year” adjustments
• Once A makes her $100 Year 1 push-out adjustment, her
basis in P at the end of Year 2 is increased from $500 to
$600. As a result, A’s Year 2 gain on sale to C is reduced
from $100 to $0.
• A’s Year 2 tax decrease (resulting from this gain reduction)
does not net against the amount A must pay with her Year 3
tax return, since the “push-out” election allows only for
increases
• Since A no longer is a partner, has she been whipsawed?
• Proposed regulations provide that non-positive exam
adjustments subject to push-out election are taken into
account by reviewed year partners, but do not clearly
articulate whether a non-positive intervening year adjustment
can also be taken into account by a reviewed year partner

#cbizmhmwebinar 26
• Under the amended return option, some or all of P’s Year
3 imputed underpayment can be replaced with tax paid
by A and/or B on amended returns to be filed for Year 1
• Assuming A uses the amended return option, she will
prepare a Year 1 amended tax return and pay the tax
resulting from the $100 exam adjustment allocable to A
• A’s Year 2 taxes can be re-determined under the amended
return option, so A can claim a refund for the tax paid on
the Year 2 gain of $100 that is re-determined to be $0
• Much more “fair” to A, and still “fair” to C, so this option
likely is the best one

#cbizmhmwebinar 27
• Practical concerns
• Who will help the Partnership Representative make the
appropriate choice?
• What if A is subject to different tax rates on ordinary income
and capital gains? A will not care much for the amended
return option in that case, and would prefer the default rule
(which hurts C). Note that the partnership must rely on A’s
cooperation to take advantage of this modification
procedure (the partnership cannot force A to amend, unless
there is a previous contractual consent). On the other hand,
the partnership could make a push-out election, without a
need for A’s consent.
• Will A have recourse against P if A is not consulted on choice
between “push-out” election or amended return option?
• These contingencies must be addressed in a revised
partnership agreement

#cbizmhmwebinar 28
Thoughts about Revised Partnership
And LLC Member Agreements

#cbizmhmwebinar 29
Revised Partnership and LLC Member Agreements
• The new rules effectively require all Partnerships and LLCs
to amend their respective Partnership Agreements and
Member Operating Agreements to address:
• Selection of Partnership Representative
• What qualifications will be required?
• If a non-partner is selected, will additional fiduciary duties be
articulated?
• Required actions of Partnership Representative
• Will the Partnership “opt out,” and under what circumstances?
• Will the Partners insist on their consent, prior to actions of
Partnership Representative?
• Will the Partnership be required or prohibited to use the
“push-out” election in certain circumstances?

#cbizmhmwebinar 30
Revised Partnership and LLC Member Agreements
• The new rules effectively require all Partnerships and
LLCs to amend their respective Partnership
Agreements and Member Operating Agreements to
address (cont’d):
• Required actions of Partners
• Will Partners be required to provide timely information
to help Partnership mitigate Partnership-level tax?
• Will Partners be required to amend returns when
requested by Partnership Representative?
• Indemnities
• Will indemnities be put in place, requiring former
partners to make payments for their “share” of tax that
cannot be offset through distributions?

#cbizmhmwebinar 31
Example 2
Net increase from exam; prior distribution gain

#cbizmhmwebinar 32
Ex. 2: Net increase from exam; prior distribution gain
• Partnership “P” is formed during Year 1 by Partners “A”
and “B,” with agreement to share 50/50
• Assume the beginning tax basis of A’s and B’s partnership
interest is $90 each
• P has Year 1 loss of $100, allocated 50/50 to A and B
• P has Year 2 income of $0, and during Year 2, A receives a
$100 cash distribution from P
• A recognizes tax benefit from $50 loss in Year 1, and tax on
$60 distribution gain in Year 2 (the difference between her
Year 2 distribution and basis of $40 that results from her
Year 1 and Year 2 allocations from P)
• P’s Year 1 tax return is audited during Year 3, where Year 1
loss is re-determined to be $0 instead of $100

#cbizmhmwebinar 33
• Under the default imputed underpayment rule, tax on the $100
unfavorable adjustment is paid by P during Year 3
• A and B economically bear the cost of the imputed underpayment,
albeit at the maximum rate of tax in effect for Year 1
• Proposed regulations reserve on basis adjustment rules, but state that
the IRS is considering giving the basis adjustment to Adjustment Year
partners, not Reviewed Year partners. If A gets a basis increase
retroactively to Year 1 for this exam adjustment, A could then amend
her Year 2 tax return (outside the scope of the new rules) to adjust her
$60 gain down to $10, and request a refund. Future regulations may
not provide for this result.
• Under the “push-out” election, the $100 unfavorable adjustment is
pushed out to A and B, who re-compute their Year 1 taxes to account
for the adjustment, and then report the resulting tax on their Year 3
tax returns
• A and B bear the Year 1 tax cost at their “correct” tax rates
• A and B are subject to the 2% interest surcharge

#cbizmhmwebinar 34
• Under the “push-out” election, A must include
“intervening year” adjustments
• Once A picks up her $50 Year 1 push-out adjustment, the
basis in her P interest at the end of Year 2 is increased from
$40 to $90. As a result, A’s Year 2 gain from the distribution
is reduced from $60 to $10
• A’s Year 2 tax decrease (resulting from this gain reduction)
does not net against the amount A must pay with her Year 3
tax return, since the “push-out” election allows only for
increases. In this case, A’s “overpaid” Year 2 tax can be
recouped in later years through her $90 retained basis
(notwithstanding future regulations to allow A to make a
separate reviewed year adjustment)

#cbizmhmwebinar 35
• Under the amended return option, some or all of P’s
Year 3 imputed underpayment can be replaced with
tax resulting from amended returns to be filed for
Year 1 by A and/or B
• Assuming A uses the amended return option, she will
prepare a Year 1 amended tax return and pay the tax
resulting from the $50 exam adjustment allocable to
A
• A’s Year 2 taxes can be re-determined under the
amended return option, so A can claim a refund for
the tax paid on the Year 2 gain decrease of $50

#cbizmhmwebinar 36
Example 3
Re-allocation from exam; decrease partner leaves

#cbizmhmwebinar 37
Ex. 3: Re-allocation from exam; decrease partner leaves
• Partnership “P” is formed during Year 1 by Partners
“A” and “B,” with agreement to allocate profits and
losses according to a specified “waterfall” schedule
• P has Year 1 income of $1,000, allocated entirely to A
according to the interpretation of the waterfall
schedule
• During Year 2, A sells his entire interest in P to new
Partner “C”
• P’s Year 1 tax return is audited during Year 3, where
Year 1 income is re-determined to be allocable 50/50
between A and B, rather than 100% allocable to A

#cbizmhmwebinar 38
• Under the default imputed underpayment rule, re-allocations of
distributive shares are not netted, so the decrease item is disregarded
when determining the partnership-level tax deficiency. Tax on the $50
unfavorable adjustment is paid by P during Year 3.
• B and C economically bear the cost of the imputed underpayment, which is
“unfair” to C
• Under proposed regulations, B and C also pick up the decrease item as an
income adjustment in P’s Adjustment Year tax filing, which perhaps rectifies C’s
outcome
• Under the “push-out” election, the $50 unfavorable adjustment is pushed
out to B, who re-computes his Year 1 taxes to account for the adjustment,
and then reports the resulting tax on his Year 3 tax return
• “Fairer” to C, in that B remains responsible for the tax increase attributable to B
• Under proposed regulations, A picks up the decrease item in A’s Reviewed Year
tax filing (Year 1)
• A would then pay tax for the “intervening year” adjustment to A’s Year 2 sale
transaction (which would be a tax increase)

#cbizmhmwebinar 39
• Under the amended return option, P’s Year 3 imputed
underpayment can be replaced with tax paid by A and
B on Year 1 amended returns, but only if both A and B
file
• A’s Year 1 refund potential is preserved in this case, and
B’s Year 1 tax increase still does not impact C, so this
appears to be the best choice in terms of overall
“fairness” (the push-out election under proposed
regulations will be the second-best)

#cbizmhmwebinar 40
Example 4
Re-allocation from exam; increase partner leaves

#cbizmhmwebinar 41
Ex. 4: Re-allocation from exam; increase partner leaves
• Partnership “P” is formed during Year 1 by Partners
“A” and “B,” with agreement allocate profits and
losses according to a specified “waterfall” schedule
• P has Year 1 income of $1,000, allocated entirely to A
according to the interpretation of the waterfall
schedule
• During Year 2, B sells his entire interest in P to new
Partner “C”
• P’s Year 1 tax return is audited during Year 3, where
Year 1 income is re-determined to be allocable 50/50
between A and B, rather than 100% allocable to A

#cbizmhmwebinar 42
• Under the default imputed underpayment rule, re-
allocations of distributive shares are not netted, so
the decrease item is disregarded when determining
the partnership-level tax deficiency. Tax on the $50
unfavorable adjustment is paid by P during Year 3.
• A and C economically bear the cost of the imputed
underpayment, which is “unfair” to both A and C
• C had nothing to do with the Year 1 allocation, and A
already paid tax on the over-allocation
• Under proposed regulations, A and C also pick up the
decrease item as an income adjustment in P’s
Adjustment Year tax filing, which perhaps rectifies A’s
and C’s outcome

#cbizmhmwebinar 43
• Under the “push-out” election, the $50 unfavorable
adjustment is pushed out to B, who re-computes his
Year 1 taxes to account for the adjustment, and then
reports the resulting tax on his Year 3 tax return
• “Fairer” to A and C, in that B remains responsible for
the tax increase attributable to B
• B will be subject to the 2% interest surcharge, which B
would not have incurred had B been given the option
to file an amended return
• Under proposed regulations, A picks up the decrease
item in A’s Reviewed Year tax filing (Year 1)

#cbizmhmwebinar 44
• Under the amended return option, P’s Year 3 imputed
underpayment can be replaced with tax paid by A and B
on Year 1 amended returns, but only if both A and B file
• A’s Year 1 refund potential is preserved in this case, and B’s
Year 1 tax increase still does not impact C, so this appears to
be the best choice in terms of overall “fairness”
• But, what would motivate B to cooperate? Without any
express agreement requiring B to cooperate, B is not
required to file an amended return. Perhaps P can suggest
to B that a push-out election would be forthcoming if B does
not cooperate. On the other hand, a push-out election may
be easier to administer from P’s standpoint. What if B
wants the choice to file an amended return?
• Here again, an amended partnership / LLC agreement will
be required to address this potential dilemma

#cbizmhmwebinar 45
?
QUESTIONS

#cbizmhmwebinar 46
If You Enjoyed This Webcast…
Upcoming Courses:
• 2/9, 2/14: Eye on Washington – Quarterly Business Tax Update, Q4 2016
Recent Publications:
• Your Presence May No Longer Be Needed: Implications of the DMA Litigation
• New York Reduces Unclaimed Property Look-Back Period for Voluntary
Compliance Program
• Lay of the Accounting Landscape: Definition of a Business and Other Topics
• Changes in the Tax Code Could Affect Not-for-Profits

#cbizmhmwebinar 47
Connect with Us
linkedin.com/company/
mayer-hoffman-mccann-p.c.
@mhm_pc
youtube.com/
mayerhoffmanmccann
slideshare.net/mhmpc
linkedin.com/company/
cbiz-mhm-llc
@cbizmhm
youtube.com/
BizTipsVideos
slideshare.net/CBIZInc
MHM CBIZ

#cbizmhmwebinar 48
THANK YOU
CBIZ & Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.
cbizmhmwebinars@cbiz.com

Webinar Slides: New Partnership Audit Rules - Planning Ideas and Practical Observations

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from MHM (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.)

More from MHM (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Webinar Slides: New Partnership Audit Rules - Planning Ideas and Practical Observations