The current case of Property of Fields v. Commissioner, T.C. 2024-90 (Tax Ct. 9-26-24), supplies a textbook instance of a bad-facts household restricted partnership (FLP) that prompted property tax inclusion of the property transferred to the FLP underneath each Inside Income Code Part 2036(a)(1) and (2) with lack of reductions for lack of management and lack of marketability. The court docket utilized the Tax Court docket’s 2017 holding in Property of Powell v. Comm’r, 148 T.C. 392 (2017), which stated that the flexibility of the decedent as a restricted companion to affix along with different companions to liquidate the FLP constitutes an IRC Part 2036(a)(2) property tax set off and raises the specter of accuracy-related penalties.
Businesswoman Designates Successor
Anne Milner Fields inherited an oil enterprise when her husband handed away within the Nineteen Sixties. She ran that enterprise properly and, over time, turned a profitable businessperson. She took a selected curiosity in her nice nephew, Bryan Milner, educating him, mentoring him and designating him because the successor to her wealth. In her later years, she relied on Bryan to deal with her and handle her belongings, entrusting him with a common sturdy energy of legal professional. Bryan in the end exercised this POA to implement an property plan involving an FLP a few month earlier than Anne’s loss of life on June 23, 2016.
Restricted Partnership Shaped
On Might 20, 2016, Bryan fashioned AM Fields Administration, of which he was the only member and supervisor. He then fashioned AM Fields on Might 26, 2016, for which AM Fields Administration was the overall companion and Anne was the restricted companion. In forming AM Fields, Bryan signed the partnership settlement each because the supervisor of AM Fields Administration and as Anne’s agent underneath her POA with respect to her LP curiosity. He then used his POA to switch to AM Fields roughly $17 million of Anne’s belongings (constituting greater than 85% of her wealth). He additionally prompted AM Fields Administration to contribute $1,000 to AM Fields as its capital contribution. In alternate for the partnership contributions, Anne obtained a 99.9941% LP curiosity in AM Fields, and AM Fields Administration obtained a 0.0059% GP curiosity.
After Anne handed away, Bryan obtained an appraisal of Anne’s LP curiosity in AM Fields. The appraiser valued the curiosity at $10.8 million as of Anne’s date of loss of life, lowering the roughly $17 million in belongings that she contributed to the FLP roughly one month earlier than her loss of life by a 36.25% combination low cost for lack of management and lack of marketability. As Anne’s property executor, Bryan reported this discounted worth on the property’s Type 706 property tax return.
Discover of Deficiency Issued
The IRS audited the property tax return and attacked the claimed low cost underneath Part 2036(a)(1) and (2). In a Discover of Deficiency, the IRS asserted that Part 2036(a) applies such that the gross property contains the total date-of-death worth of Anne’s belongings that have been contributed to AM Fields with none low cost for lack of management or lack of marketability. The IRS additionally asserted an accuracy-related penalty in opposition to the property underneath IRC Sections 6662(a) and (b)(1) because of negligence or disregard of guidelines or rules. Litigation within the Tax Court docket adopted.
Part 2036 Evaluation
The Tax Court docket noticed that there are three necessities for property to be included within the gross property underneath Part 2036(a): (1)the decedent should have made an inter vivos switch of property (which was undisputed right here); (2) the decedent should have retained an curiosity or proper laid out in Part 2036(a)(1) or (2) within the transferred property that they didn’t relinquish till loss of life; and (3) the switch should not have constituted a bona fide sale for ample and full consideration.
Retained Curiosity underneath Part 2036(a)(1)
The court docket had little issue discovering that Anne retained an curiosity within the property that she transferred to the FLP underneath part 2036(a)(1). Because of Bryan’s twin function as attorney-in-fact underneath Anne’s POA and because the supervisor of the GP, Anne had the best to revenue from her transferred belongings. The court docket additionally discovered that Anne and Bryan implicitly agreed that Bryan would make distributions from the partnership to fulfill Anne’s bills, money owed and bequests. This was proof of Anne’s retained curiosity within the belongings transferred to the partnership. The court docket thought of de minimis the $1,000 GP curiosity that AM Fields acquired within the FLP, so it didn’t give rise to a pooling of pursuits to probably alter this end result.
Retained Proper to Designate Enjoyment of Property
Counting on Powell, the court docket then held that property tax inclusion was additionally triggered underneath Part 2036(a)(2) by advantage of Anne’s retention of the best, as an LP, to behave along side the GP to dissolve the FLP and trigger its liquidation.
Bona Fide Sale Exception to Part 2036 Not Obtainable
The court docket subsequent thought of whether or not Part 2036’s exception for transfers constituting a “bona fide sale for an ample and full consideration in cash or cash’s value” may spare the taxpayer from Part 2036’s attain. This exception requires a full and ample consideration for the inter vivos switch and a “bona fide sale.” The bona fide sale prong, in flip, requires a “substantial nontax goal.”
Relying principally on Bryan’s testimony, the property argued that there have been 4 substantial non-tax functions behind Anne’s capital contributions to the FLP:
1. The FLP protected Anne from additional situations of monetary elder abuse (which she had sustained a number of years earlier).
2. The FLP allowed for succession administration of belongings by allowing Bryan to designate his successor.
3. The FLP resolved considerations that third events, akin to banks, might refuse to honor Anne’s POA (which had occurred a number of years earlier).
4. The FLP permits for consolidated and streamlined administration of belongings.
The court docket discovered Bryan’s testimony that Anne was really motivated by any of the above 4 targets to contribute her belongings to the FLP not credible. Relatively, the court docket discovered the institution of the FLP was motivated by the will to save lots of property taxes and thought of significantly telling an electronic mail from Bryan’s legal professional to the appraiser that inquired about “acquiring a deeper low cost” for tax functions. Additional, the timeline for the institution and funding of the FLP coincided with Anne’s precipitous decline in well being, as she suffered from extreme Alzheimer’s and died roughly one month after the partnership was funded. As well as, the transfers of belongings to the FLP depleted Anne’s liquidity to the purpose that the property couldn’t pay Anne’s bequests underneath her will or its property tax legal responsibility with out receiving substantial distributions from the FLP. Given these circumstances, the court docket decided that the acknowledged on-tax functions have been publish hoc “theoretical justifications” relatively than “precise motivations.” The property, subsequently, failed to satisfy its burden of proof that the transfers to the FLP constituted bona fide gross sales to qualify for the exception to Part 2036.
Quantity of the Part 2036 Inclusion
The court docket then addressed the quantity of the Part 2036 inclusion and relied on Property of Moore, T.C. Memo. 2020-40 (2020) for its evaluation. Below Moore, one should contemplate the date-of-death worth of each the restricted partnership curiosity (underneath Part 2033) and the transferred partnership property (underneath Part 2036) after which offset in opposition to it underneath Part 2043(a) the worth of the transferred property as of the date of switch. As a result of neither get together argued that there was appreciation or depreciation within the worth of the transferred property between the date of switch and the date of loss of life, the Part 2033 and Part 2043(a) elements canceled one another out, producing property tax inclusion of the date-of-death worth of the transferred property with none low cost.
Accuracy-Associated Penalty
Lastly, the court docket reviewed the IRS’ imposition of a 20% accuracy-related penalty underneath IRC Sections 6662(a) and (b)(1) on the underpayment of property tax required to be proven on the property tax return because of both negligence or the disregard of guidelines or rules. Part 6662(c) supplies that the time period “negligence” contains any failure to make an affordable try to adjust to the IRC, and the time period “disregard” contains any careless, reckless or intentional disregard.
In his capability as executor, the property argued Bryan had cheap trigger for any underpayment and acted in good religion in figuring out the property tax legal responsibility. The court docket rejected this assertion as a result of Bryan by no means contended that he personally thought of, researched or understood the implications of Part 2036 upon the property tax legal responsibility. Furthermore, the file didn’t present that Bryan relied in good religion on an advisor’s judgment in discounting the worth of Anne’s LP curiosity with out contemplating the appliance of Part 2036. The property, subsequently, failed to satisfy its burden of creating cheap trigger and consequently was accountable for the 20% accuracy-related penalty on the underpayment of property tax.
