IRS published new regulations in January that would upset 25 years of treatment of the allocation of liabilities. Under current rules, the determination of whether a liability is recourse to a partner (or related person) is determined by whether the partner has an obligation to make a contribution to any person because a liability is due and payable and the partner does not have a right to reimbursement from anyone. Under the proposed regulations, seven additional requirements must be satisfied before the partner may receive the allocation. The seven rules, presented in an abbreviated form, are: (1) the partner must maintain a reasonable net worth; (2) the partner provide reasonable commercial documentation; (3) the term of the partner’s obligation does not end before the liability is due; (4 ) the partnership is not required to hold liquid assets in excess of the business needs of the partnership; (5) the partner-guarantor receives reasonable compensation in exchange for his guarantee; (6) the partner’s guarantee is not a “bottom-dollar” guarantee; (7) the partner is liable for the full amount of the other person’s liability in the case of indemnity or reimbursement arrangement. Failure to satisfy all seven rules converts recourse debt into non-recourse debt. In fact, the proposed rules create a bias toward non-recourse debt.
There is also a new net value requirement that acts to limit the amount of the liability that will be treated as recourse. The net value requirement also produces odd results. Assume A and B are partners in a limited liability company. If A guarantees the entire debt, it would be recourse to A. Assume, however, that A is a member of a partnership and the partnership guarantees the debt. The only asset of the partnership is its interest in the limited liability company and the new net value test prevents the liability from being allocated to A.
The examples in the proposed regulations suggest the potential for more strange results. Partnership borrows $1,000 and partner A guarantees $300, while B guarantees the bottom $200. C agrees to reimburse A for up to $50. A and B waive their rights against each other. Because A does not bear the full risk of loss on his guarantee, the proposed regulations cause $250 of the obligation to be treated a non-recourse despite the fact that A is liable to the bank for $300. The expectation is, of course, that A would have $300 of recourse debt allocated to him.
The effective date of the 752 proposed regulations is the date they are finalized. This means that liabilities and payment obligations incurred after that date will be subject to these rules. Many existing partnership agreements will have to be revised if new debt is incurred or payment obligations are undertaken.
If you are interested in reading about other changes being made by the Inter Reveneu Servue here are some additional articles by Frank L. Brunetti,Joseph Doengan, and me:
IRS Extends Estate Tax Break
IRS Postpones Beginning of Tax Season For the Second Time
IRS Budget Constraints May Harm Taxpayers, Advisory Council Warns
IRS to Focus Attention on Small Business Partnerships
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Proposed Debt Allocation Regulations Produce Unexpected and Unwanted Results
Author: James F. McDonough
IRS published new regulations in January that would upset 25 years of treatment of the allocation of liabilities. Under current rules, the determination of whether a liability is recourse to a partner (or related person) is determined by whether the partner has an obligation to make a contribution to any person because a liability is due and payable and the partner does not have a right to reimbursement from anyone. Under the proposed regulations, seven additional requirements must be satisfied before the partner may receive the allocation. The seven rules, presented in an abbreviated form, are: (1) the partner must maintain a reasonable net worth; (2) the partner provide reasonable commercial documentation; (3) the term of the partner’s obligation does not end before the liability is due; (4 ) the partnership is not required to hold liquid assets in excess of the business needs of the partnership; (5) the partner-guarantor receives reasonable compensation in exchange for his guarantee; (6) the partner’s guarantee is not a “bottom-dollar” guarantee; (7) the partner is liable for the full amount of the other person’s liability in the case of indemnity or reimbursement arrangement. Failure to satisfy all seven rules converts recourse debt into non-recourse debt. In fact, the proposed rules create a bias toward non-recourse debt.
There is also a new net value requirement that acts to limit the amount of the liability that will be treated as recourse. The net value requirement also produces odd results. Assume A and B are partners in a limited liability company. If A guarantees the entire debt, it would be recourse to A. Assume, however, that A is a member of a partnership and the partnership guarantees the debt. The only asset of the partnership is its interest in the limited liability company and the new net value test prevents the liability from being allocated to A.
The examples in the proposed regulations suggest the potential for more strange results. Partnership borrows $1,000 and partner A guarantees $300, while B guarantees the bottom $200. C agrees to reimburse A for up to $50. A and B waive their rights against each other. Because A does not bear the full risk of loss on his guarantee, the proposed regulations cause $250 of the obligation to be treated a non-recourse despite the fact that A is liable to the bank for $300. The expectation is, of course, that A would have $300 of recourse debt allocated to him.
The effective date of the 752 proposed regulations is the date they are finalized. This means that liabilities and payment obligations incurred after that date will be subject to these rules. Many existing partnership agreements will have to be revised if new debt is incurred or payment obligations are undertaken.
If you are interested in reading about other changes being made by the Inter Reveneu Servue here are some additional articles by Frank L. Brunetti,Joseph Doengan, and me:
IRS Extends Estate Tax Break
IRS Postpones Beginning of Tax Season For the Second Time
IRS Budget Constraints May Harm Taxpayers, Advisory Council Warns
IRS to Focus Attention on Small Business Partnerships
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
