The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of “limited partner” in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. 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 also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

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.

No Significant Role in Management

The Fifth Circuit stated that the backdrop against which Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) in 1977 suggested that some participation is allowed, so long as the partners do not exercise control over the business, and that the plain text of the statute points towards this conclusion. The court observed that all relevant sources suggested that when the statute was enacted, the ordinary public meaning of“limited partner” included a partner who did not play a significant role in managing or running the business.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s Soroban decision, which held that that the term “limited partner” could refer only to passive investors. The court stated that the Tax Court had selected a rule that was divorced from statutory text and that appeared to prohibit even the most minor involvement in corporate affairs. In the Fifth Circuit’s view, it would have been understood at the time Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) that a limited partner could not manage the partnership, but perhaps could participate in certain nonmanagerial aspects of the business.

The court also stated that the Soroban decision could not be squared with decades of IRS-approved guidance insisting that what mattered was limited liability alone. The court characterized the IRS’s position to be that it could change the meaning of “limited partner” from “limited liability alone” to the “passive investor” standard with no action from Congress to amend the text of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Even assuming that the IRS could unilaterally effectuate such changes through tax instructions, the court stated that the IRS’s instructions must comport with the original public meaning of the text enacted by Congress.

Withdrawing Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5, 2026-1 ustc ¶50,109, and vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

K Alain, L.L.L.P., CA-5