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.
