Comprehensive Overhaul of Partnership Audit Regime

Nov 11, 2015

Reading Time : 3 min
  • Under the default method, any adjustment will be assessed and taxed at the fund level in the year of the adjustment and at the highest applicable tax rate. As such, absent a contrary arrangement, the current investors will indirectly bear the economic burden of any tax collected, regardless of whether they were investors in the fund in the reviewed year (i.e., the year that is under audit). Investors would not be jointly and severally liable for fund-level deficiencies. The amount of fund-level liability may be modified if the fund can demonstrate that certain investors in the reviewed year filed amended tax returns and paid any associated tax liability, or that a lower tax rate applies to specific investors (including tax-exempt investors).
  • Under an alternative method, a fund may elect to issue revised K-1s to its investors in the reviewed year and cause such investors to take into account any adjustments, as well as any collateral impact on tax attributes, and pay the calculated amount due on their tax returns in the year of the adjustment. These investors would also incur a two-percentage point increase on the interest rate on their underpayment of taxes. However, no tax would be assessed at the fund level.
  • A fund with 100 or fewer partners can elect out of the regime, provided that no partner is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
  • Existing statutory requirements to notify investors of certain fund-level audit activity and investor rights to participate in fund-level proceedings are repealed. Thus, under the new regime, the fund will generally have full authority to settle tax disputes affecting all investors (which represents a significant change from the existing regime).
  • A fund will no longer need a “tax matters partner” (TMP) and instead will designate a “tax representative.” The tax representative must have a substantial U.S. presence, but no longer needs to be a partner or member.
  • The new regime applies to taxable years beginning in 2018, although funds may elect to apply the new regime for taxable years beginning before 2018 but after the date of enactment.

Open-ended investment funds and closed-end investment funds operating beyond 2017 should consider the following:

  • Update the fund’s governing documents, including LPAs and subscription documents, to permit an equitable allocation of historical tax liabilities and/or obtain appropriate indemnities, and to preserve the flexibility to require LPs to file amended returns and pay any associated tax liability.
  • Review withdrawal mechanics to protect the fund’s potential exposure with respect to audit activity (e.g., using an escrow, LP clawback or special liquidation interest).
  • Assess potential impact on net asset value, performance and management fee calculations and financial statements.
  • Add a risk factor that the fund may be exposed to entity-level taxation upon audit as a material consideration in PPMs and other investor documentation.
  • Increase efforts to prepare for IRS audits, since it is reasonable to anticipate that there will be an uptick in IRS audit activity.
  • Expect additional diligence efforts by subscribers in subsequent closings and transferees in secondary market transfers of LP interests, and requests for contractual comfort with respect to the fund’s audit process.
  • Understand fiduciary obligations on the tax representative as a result of the potential optionality of the new regime.
  • Review state and local tax implications and developments.

Note that the Treasury Department has received a broad grant of authority and may issue guidance on a variety of issues, such as the impact on tiered structures (including master-feeder arrangements), basis computations, transitional rules, and the involvement of offshore feeders or investors.

Contact Information

If you have any questions regarding this alert, or the tax treatment of investment funds more generally, please contact:

Patrick B. Fenn
pfenn@akingump.com
212.872.1040
New York
Stuart E. Leblang
sleblang@akingump.com
212.872.1017
New York
Lewis J. Kweit
lkweit@akingump.com
212.872.1041
New York
Ron Grabov-Nardini
rgrabov-nardini@akingump.com
212.872.1079
New York
Howard Leventhal
hleventhal@akingump.com
212.872.1099
New York
Olivier De Moor
odemoor@akingump.com
212.872.1032
New York

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.