Understanding IRC 704(c): An Analysis of Tax Implications for Partnership Contributions

IRC Section 704(c) is a critical provision of the Internal Revenue Code that addresses how partnerships must allocate income, gain, loss, and deduction with respect to property contributed by partners. The fundamental purpose of Section 704(c) is to prevent the shifting of tax consequences among partners with respect to precontribution gain or loss. This provision ensures that built-in gains or losses on contributed property are properly allocated to the contributing partner rather than being shifted to other partners.

The Mechanics of IRC 704(c)

Section 704(c) applies when a partner contributes property to a partnership where the property’s fair market value differs from its adjusted tax basis at the time of contribution. This difference creates what is known as “Section 704(c) property”. The built-in gain on Section 704(c) property is the excess of the property’s book value over the contributing partner’s adjusted tax basis upon contribution.

When a partner contributes property with a built-in gain or loss, the partnership must allocate the tax items related to that property using a reasonable method that takes into account any variation between the adjusted tax basis and fair market value at the time of contribution. This allocation prevents the shifting of tax consequences among partners and ensures that the contributing partner ultimately recognizes the built-in gain or loss that existed at the time of contribution.

The regulations under Section 704(c) describe three methods that are generally considered reasonable for making these allocations:

1. The traditional method

2. The traditional method with curative allocations

3. The remedial allocation method

Each method has different implications for how effectively the built-in gain or loss is allocated back to the contributing partner.

The Traditional Method and the Ceiling Rule

Under the traditional method, there exists a significant limitation known as the “ceiling rule.” This rule stipulates that the total taxable income, gain, loss, or deduction allocated to the partners for a tax year concerning a property cannot exceed the total partnership taxable income, gain, loss, or deduction concerning that property for the tax year.

In practical terms, the ceiling rule can limit the partnership’s ability to fully allocate tax items to noncontributing partners in a way that matches their economic (Section 704(b)) allocations. This limitation can result in a shift of tax consequences among partners, which is precisely what Section 704(c) aims to prevent.

The Anti-Abuse Rule Under Section 704(c)

To prevent manipulative applications of Section 704(c), the regulations include an anti-abuse rule found in Regulations Section 1.704-3(a)(10). This rule states that a Section 704(c) allocation method is not reasonable if the contribution of property and the corresponding allocation of tax items are made “with a view” to shifting the tax consequences of built-in gain or loss among partners in a manner that substantially reduces the present value of the partners’ aggregate tax liability.

The IRS has provided guidance on the application of this anti-abuse rule in Field Attorney Advice (FAA) 20204201F. According to this guidance, the “with a view” standard has a relatively low threshold compared to other anti-abuse provisions in the tax code. The IRS has indicated that even if a taxpayer has other valid business motives, the anti-abuse rule can apply if the shifting of tax consequences was “contemplated” or a “recognized possibility”.

Notable Case Law: FAA 20204201F Analysis

While not technically case law in the traditional sense, FAAs 20204201F provides significant insight into how the IRS interprets and applies the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule. This field advice memorandum involved a U.S. corporation and its domestic subsidiary that contributed high-value intangible assets with zero tax basis to a partnership that included a foreign partner indirectly owned by the U.S. corporation.

In this case, the IRS identified three requirements for the anti-abuse rule to apply:

1. The contribution and allocation must be made “with a view”

2. To shifting the tax consequences of the property’s built-in gain

3. In a manner that substantially reduces the present value of the partners’ aggregate tax liability

The IRS determined that the partnership’s chosen Section 704(c) method would systematically shift the built-in gain in the contributed intangibles from the domestic partners to the foreign partner. The foreign partner was allocated a share of partnership income for both Section 704(b) book and tax purposes, as well as a portion of the Section 704(b) book amortization. However, because the contributed intangibles had zero tax basis, the foreign partner received no corresponding tax amortization.

The IRS concluded that the requirements of the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule were met, even though the reorganization may have been partially motivated by legitimate business purposes. This conclusion highlights the IRS’s position that the “with a view” standard can be satisfied even when tax considerations are not the primary motivation for a transaction.

Practical Applications and Examples

To better understand Section 704(c), consider a simple example: A private equity firm (PE) is looking to buy a portfolio company and wants to partner with the current owners. The PE agrees to purchase the target corporation’s business, and the current owners will “roll over” a portion of their ownership into the PE’s structure.

In this scenario, if the target has appreciated assets, Section 704(c) requires that the operating partnership allocate the full pre-contribution taxable gain to the target. This ensures that the built-in gain that existed before the contribution remains with the contributing partner rather than being shifted to the new partners.

Another example from the regulations involves a situation where a partner contributes property with a built-in gain and the partnership uses the traditional method, which, due to the ceiling rule, results in a shift of tax consequences among partners. In such cases, the partnership might consider using either the traditional method with curative allocations or the remedial allocation method to better achieve the purpose of Section 704(c).

Implications for Tax Planning

The IRS’s interpretation of the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule in FAA 20204201F has significant implications for tax planning. The memorandum suggests that the IRS may seek to apply this rule broadly, particularly where related or accommodative partners select a Section 704(c) allocation method with an eye toward reducing their aggregate federal income tax liabilities.

Tax practitioners should be aware that the “with a view” standard has a low threshold, and the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule can apply to transactions undertaken primarily for valid business purposes if it is likely or anticipated to result in a substantial reduction of the partners’ U.S. federal income tax liabilities.

Furthermore, the FAA indicates that the IRS may respect a back-end gain curative allocation only where there is a reasonable possibility that the relevant Section 704(c) property will actually be sold and, at the time of sale, the property will retain sufficient value to generate enough tax gain to effectively cure prior ceiling-rule limitations.

Recent Developments and Considerations

In recent years, the IRS has shown increased interest in enforcing Section 704(c) compliance, particularly in transactions involving foreign partners. The FAA 20204201F is significant because it demonstrates the IRS’s willingness to challenge Section 704(c) methods that result in tax savings, even when there are legitimate business purposes for the underlying transaction.

Tax practitioners should carefully consider the potential application of the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule when structuring partnership contributions, especially when:

1. The partners are related or accommodative

2. The contributed property has significant built-in gain or loss

3. The chosen Section 704(c) method could result in substantial tax savings

4. The transaction involves international tax planning

IRC Section 704(c) plays a crucial role in preventing the shifting of tax consequences among partners with respect to property contributed to partnerships. The provision ensures that built-in gains or losses on contributed property are properly allocated to the contributing partner rather than being shifted to other partners.

The IRS’s interpretation of the Section 704(c) anti-abuse rule, as demonstrated in FAA 20204201F, suggests a broad application of this rule, particularly in situations involving related partners and international tax planning. Tax practitioners should carefully consider these implications when structuring partnership contributions and selecting Section 704(c) allocation methods.

Understanding the mechanics of Section 704(c), including the traditional method, the ceiling rule, and the anti-abuse provisions, is essential for effective tax planning in partnership transactions involving contributed property. By properly applying Section 704(c), partnerships can ensure compliance with tax regulations while achieving their legitimate business objectives.

---

Howard Law is a business, regulatory and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, regulatory law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.