by Mat Sorensen | Nov 4, 2014 | IRA/LLCs
Limited Partnerships (LP) have taken a back seat over the past ten years to the more popular Limited Liability Company (LLC). That being said, LPs are still often used to hold assets, raise funds, or to achieve achieve specific tax benefits. Here are 5 things you should know about Limited Partnerships.
- General Partners and Limited Partners. Every Limited Partnership consists of at least one general partner and one limited partner. The general partner has decision-making authority and is also responsible for the liabilities of the limited partnership. The limited partners participate in the sharing of profits and losses but do not have a voting interest. Because the general partner is subject to liability of the LP, the general partner is usually a company that does not hold significant assets. The limited partner on the hand is not responsible for the liabilities of the LP. For example, the general partner may be an operating s-corp or a shell company LLC while the limited partner may be an individual or a trust.
- Limited Partnerships and Asset Protection. Limited partnerships provide asset protection for the limited partners of the LP against the activities of the LP. For example, if there is a judgment against the LP, that creditor cannot go after the limited partners. In addition, if an owner of an LP has a judgment against themselves personally, that creditor cannot go after the assets in the limited partnership. Instead, the creditor is given a charging order that only entitles them to the assets or income that the LP decides to distribute to the owner of the limited partnership. As a result, the assets of the limited partnership are protected from the personal activities/liabilities of the owner. Because of this, many individuals will use limited partnerships to hold their valuable assets. While some states offer this same liability protection to LLCs (protect the entity from the owners actions), most states do not.
- Hold Rentals in an LLC. Because LP’s are a great place to hold assets, it is important to know what assets should be held in an LP. The following assets are commonly held by LPs: brokerage/investment accounts; second homes; valuable personal property, and raw land. An LP, however, generally should not hold rental real estate, because the tax rules applicable to LP’s limit an owner’s ability to fully take advantage of certain tax losses. As a result, please consult with your CPA prior to placing rental real estate into an LP.
- Canadians Love LPs for Real Estate. While LLCs are great for U.S. Citizens, they cause corporate taxes in Canada for Canadian residents. As a result, Canadians who own rental real estate in the U.S. should use an LP to hold their properties as opposed to an LLC. The LP profits flow through to Canada and are only subject to personal level taxes and are not subject to Canadian corporate taxes. LLC income, on the other hand, flows to Canada and is subject to both corporate and personal taxes.
- Limited Partnerships Are Great Entities for Raising Money. Limited partnerships are often used to raise funds because under the LP structure, the general partner (the one usually raising the funds) has authority to run the LP while the investors or limited partners do not have a voting right or interest. Because the LP structure places the control in the hands of the person raising the funds, the LP is presumed to be a security for securities law purposes and as a result a securities law attorney should be consulted as to the proper filings and disclosures necessary to raise funds and sell limited partnership interests to investors.
While an LLC is the most common default entity amongst business owners and investors, the LP can be a more beneficial entity or choice in certain situations and circumstances. In a brief consult with you attorney, you will be able to determine what entity is right for you while taking into account the tax and asset protection issues that will apply to your specific situation.
by Mat Sorensen | Jul 29, 2014 | News
In a recent U.S. Tax Court case, the Court ruled against an IRA owner and deemed his IRA distributed and taxable as the IRA owner failed to properly execute his intended self-directed IRA real estate investment. Dabney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2014-108.
The IRA owner had an IRA at Charles Schwab and intended to use the IRA to acquire real estate in Brian Head, UT. Upon conducting research Mr. Dabney learned that an IRA could own real estate. However, instead of rolling or transferring his IRA funds to a self directed IRA custodian who would allow his IRA to own real estate, Mr. Dabney took a distribution of the IRA and directed Schwab to wire the funds to closing for the purchase of the property. Additionally, he instructed title and eventually received a deed in the name of his Schwab IRA.
The problem was that rather than invest his IRA into real estate he instead distributed his IRA and use the distributed fund to buy real estate outside of his IRA. Charles Schwab issued Mr. Dabney a 1099-R for that distribution and Mr. Dabney contested the 1099-R and the taxes owed as a result arguing that the funds were used to buy a property owned by his Schwab IRA. Mr. Dabney argued that Charles Schwab made a mistake. However, the Court ruled against him because his funds were distributed out of his Charles Schwab IRA and because his IRA funds and the real estate were not held by a self-directed IRA custodian that allowed for IRAs to own real estate. The Court stated that an IRA can certainly hold real estate but that Charles Schwab’s policies did not allow for Mr. Dabney’s IRA to own real estate and since his custodian would not hold the real estate as an asset of his IRA that it was deemed distributed.
The lesson to be learned from the Dabney case is that in order to properly execute a self-directed IRA investment into an asset such as real estate, the IRA owner needs to roll over or transfer their IRA funds first to a self-directed IRA custodian who allows the IRA to own real estate and then that self-directed IRA will actually take title and ownership to the IRA asset directly. While these rules seem simple, I’d estimate that I speak to at least one or two IRA owners a year who took a distribution from an IRA and used those funds to buy real estate (or some other alternative asset) thinking that the real estate would still be owned by their IRA and that the funds would not be distributed and subject to tax. The confusion usually arises with the non-self directed custodian who misunderstands what the the account owner is trying to do (invest the IRA, not distribute it). Keep in mind, that in order to own real estate with a self-directed IRA, you must have a self-directed IRA custodian.
by Mat Sorensen | Jun 3, 2014 | News
Roth IRAs can be established and funded for high-income earners by using what is known as the “back door” Roth IRA contribution method. Many high-income earners believe that they can’t contribute to a Roth IRA because they make too much money and/or because they participate in a company 401k plan. Fortunately, this thinking is wrong. While direct contributions to a Roth IRA are limited to taxpayers with income in excess of $129,000 ($191,000 for married taxpayers), those whose income exceeds these amounts may make annual contributions to a non-deductible traditional IRA and then convert those amounts over to a Roth IRA.
Examples
Here’s a few examples of earners who can establish and fund a Roth IRA.
- I’m a high-income earner and work for a company who offers a company 401(k) plan. I contribute the maximum amount to that plan each year. Can I establish and fund a Roth IRA? Yes, even though you are high-income and even though you participate in a company 401(k) plan, you can establish and fund a Roth IRA.
- I’m self-employed and earn over $200,000 a year; can I have a Roth IRA? Isn’t my income too high? Yes, you can contribute to a Roth IRA despite having income that exceeds the Roth IRA income contribution limits of $191,000 for married taxpayers and $129,000 for single taxpayers.
The Process
The strategy used by high-income earners to make Roth IRA contributions involves the making of non-deductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then converting those funds in the non-deductible traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is often times referred to as a “back door” Roth IRA. In the end, you don’t get a tax deduction the amounts contributed but the funds are held in a Roth IRA and grow and come at tax-free upon retirement (just like a Roth IRA). Here’s how it works.
Step 1: Fund a new non-deductible traditional IRA
This IRA is “non-deductible” because high-income earners who participate in a company retirement plan (or who have a spouse who does) can’t also make “deductible” contributions to an IRA. The account can, however, be funded by non-deductible amounts up to the IRA annual contribution amounts of $5,500. The non-deductible contributions mean you don’t get a tax deduction on the amounts contributed to the traditional IRA. Don’t worry about having non-deductible contributions though as you’re converting to a Roth IRA so you don’t want a deduction for the funds contributed. If you did get a deduction for the contribution, you’d have to pay taxes on the amounts later converted to Roth. You’ll need to file IRS form 8606 for the tax year in which you make non-deductible IRA contributions. The form can be found here.
If you’re a high-income earner and you don’t have a company based retirement plan (or a spouse with one), then you simply establish a standard deductible traditional IRA, as there is no high-income contribution limitation on traditional IRAs when you don’t participate in a company plan.
Step 2: Convert the non-deductible traditional IRA funds to a Roth IRA
In 2010, the limitations on Roth IRA conversions, which previously restricted Roth IRA conversions for high-income earners, was removed. As a result, since 2010 all taxpayers are able to covert traditional IRA funds to Roth IRAs. It was in 2010 that this back door Roth IRA contribution strategy was first utilized as it relied on the ability to convert funds from traditional to Roth. It has been used by thousands of Americans since.
If you have other existing traditional IRAs, then the tax treatment of your conversion to Roth becomes a little more complicated as you must take into account those existing IRA funds when undertaking a conversion (including SEPs and SIMPLE IRAs). If the only IRA you have is the non-deductible IRA, then the conversion is easy because you convert the entire non-deductible IRA amount over to Roth with no tax on the conversion. Remember, you didn’t get a deduction into the non-deductible traditional IRA so there is not tax to apply on conversions. On the other hand, if you have an existing IRA with say $95,000 in it and you have $5,000 in non-deductible traditional IRA contributions in another account that you wish to convert to Roth, then the IRS requires you to covert over your IRA funds in equal parts deductible (the $95K bucket) and non-deductible amounts (the new $5K) based on the money you have in all traditional IRAs. So, if you wanted to convert $10,000, then you’d have to convert $9,500 (95%) of your deductible bucket, which portion of conversion is subject to tax, and $500 of you non-deductible bucket, which isn’t subject to tax upon once converted. Consequently, the “back door” Roth IRA isn’t well suited when you have existing traditional IRAs that contain deductible contributions and earnings from those sums.
There are two work-arounds to this Roth IRA conversion problem and both revolve around moving the existing traditional IRA funds into a 401(k) or other employer based plan as employer plan funds are not considered when determining what portions of the traditional IRAs are subject to tax on conversion (the deductible AND the non-deductible). If you participate in an existing company 401(k) plan, then you may roll over your traditional IRA funds into that 401(k) plan. Most 401(k) plans allows for this rollover from IRA to 401(k) so long as you are still employed by that company. If you are self-employed, you may establish a solo or owner only 401(k) plan and you can roll over your traditional IRA dollars into this 401(k). In the end though, if you can’t roll out existing traditional IRA funds into a 401(k), then the “back door” Roth IRA is going to cause some tax repercussions, as you also have to convert a portion of the existing traditional IRA funds, which will cause taxes upon conversion. Taxes on conversion aren’t “the end of the world” though as all of the money that comes out of that traditional IRA would be subject to tax at some point in time. The only issue is it causes a big tax bill now so careful planning must be taken.
The bottom line is that Roth IRAs can be established and funded by high-income earners. Don’t consider yourself “left out” on one of the greatest tax strategies offered to Americans: the Roth IRA.
by Mat Sorensen | Jan 7, 2014 | Investing
While every self directed IRA investor enters into investments with high hopes and expectations of large gains, sometimes an IRA has to declare a loss on its investments and sometimes those losses are total losses. However, how does an IRA document a loss on a private partnership investment or an uncollectible promissory note investment? Two Tax Court opinions released today show us what not to do. Berks v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2014-2, Gist v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2014-1.
Berks v. Commissioner and Gist v. Commissioner
In Berks and Gist, self directed IRA owners invested their IRAs into various real estate partnerships and had equity interests and promissory note interests. Approximately five years after the investments were made, the IRA owners sought to declare the values on all of the investments worthless as the partnerships were no longer in business and as the IRA owner was told by their friend who they invested with that the investments were worthless. The IRA custodian for Berks and Gist sought additional documentation before agreeing to write down the value of the investments. Writing down the value of an investment and closing an account is a red flag for the custodian and the IRS as both want to ensure that IRA owners are not unfairly writing down investments in an effort to avoid taking distributions from the IRA which are taxable. As a result, the IRA custodian sought documentation as to the valuation change and upon receiving no documentation; the IRA custodian distributed the account to the IRA owners with the original investment amounts made from the account.
The self directed IRA accounts were closed by the custodian and the IRA owners were responsible for the taxes due from the 1099-R as well as accuracy related penalties. Eventually the un-claimed 1099-R went into collections with the IRS and the IRS sought payment of the additional taxes owed. The taxpayers disputed the amounts owed and took the case to Tax Court. The case eventually proceeded to trial and the taxpayers both lost in separate cases because they went into the case with no documentation or evidence of collection attempts. Instead, there was only testimony from the IRA owner and from their advisor that assist them in the investments. In Berks, the Court stated, “…[the IRA owner] simply took Mr. Blazer [their friend they invested with] at his word, and they apparently never saw the need to request any documentation that would substantiate that the partnerships had failed or that the promissory notes in the IRA accounts had become worthless.” Accordingly, the Court ruled against the IRA owners and held that the investment values as reported by the custodian (the initial investment amounts) were the best representation of fair market value. As a result, the IRA owners were subject to taxes owed on the higher valuation amounts.
I handled a very similar case to this one in Tax Court myself. In my case, the case resulted in the IRS reducing the valuation of the distributed IRA down to the proper discounted fair market valuation the IRA owner was seeking. As a contrast to what the taxpayers did to document their losses in Berks and Gist (e.g., no documents or records), I have outlined the steps that should be taken to properly document a loss with your IRA custodian and/or with the IRS/Tax Court.
Documenting a Loss/Failed Investment
- Hire a Third Party to Prepare an Opinion as to Value. Your custodian, the IRS, and the Tax Court all want to see an independent person’s opinion as to the value of an investment.
- Provide Accounting Records Showing Losses and No Profits/Income. In my Tax Court case on the same issue (obviously different facts and investments), we were able to re-construct the accounting records and losses from the company that demonstrated the significant valuation change. These accounting records we assembled were accompanied by financial records and third party documents which supported our numbers. The IRS agreed with our decreased valuation before trial, and dismissed their case against our client.
- Document Fraud. If fraud was involved by persons receiving the income. Was a lawsuit filed? Were complaints made to regulatory bodies (e.g. SEC or state divisions of securities)? Provide those documents to your custodian.
- If the Investment Losses are from a Un-Collectible Promissory Note.
- Engage a lawyer or collection agency to make collection efforts. Keeps documents of their collection efforts.
- If the borrower filed bankruptcy, provide the bankruptcy documentation.
- If the loan is totally un-collectible, Issue a 1099-C (Forgiveness of Debt Income to the Defaulted Borrower, you’ll need the borrower’s SSN/EIN for this).
The best way to document an investment loss is to provide a third party valuation to your custodian. A custodian cannot accept an e-mail or letter from the IRA owner saying the investments didn’t pan out. If a third party opinion as to value cannot be produced, you’ll need to provide some of the records and documents I outlined above to demonstrate the loss. Remember, as Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men, “It doesn’t matter what happened. It only matters what I can prove.” To prove an investment loss in your IRA, you’ll need documents and records showing what went wrong.
by Mat Sorensen | Nov 12, 2013 | UBIT & UDFI Tax
An IRA may invest into a real estate investment trust. Real estate investment trusts (“REIT”) are trusts whereby the company undertakes certain real estate activities (e.g. own or lend on real estate) and returns profits to its owners. An IRA may invest and be an owner in a REIT. As many self directed IRA investors know, a form of unrelated business income tax (“UBIT” tax) known as unrelated debt financed income tax (“UDFI” tax) can arise from real estate leveraged by debt.
Many REITs engage in real estate development activities and/or use debt to leverage their cash purchasing power and as a result may cause a form of UBIT tax known as UDFI tax to IRA owners. Most REITS will not pay corporate taxes and as a result will not be considered exempt from UBIT tax as a result of having paid corporate tax. However, income from REITs is still typically exempt from UBIT and UDFI tax because the definition of a “qualified dividend” in a REIT has been defined to include dividends paid by a REIT to its owners. IRS Revenue Ruling 66-106. Qualified dividends from a REIT are exempt from UBIT and UDFI tax. REITs can be publically traded or private trusts but are not easy to establish. They require at least 100 owners and must distribute at least 90% of their taxable earnings to their owners each year. Despite the general application of exception to UBIT/UDFI tax for REITs, a REIT may be operated in a manner that will not allow for qualified dividends to be paid and therefore income from the REIT would not be exempt from UBIT/UDFI tax. If you’re investing into a REIT with an IRA, make sure you know whether the REIT intends to be exempt from UBIT/UDFI tax or not. As discussed, most will be exempt from UBIT/UDFI tax but some REITs may choose to operate in ways that will not qualify for the exception. Because UBIT/UDFI tax is about 39% at $10,000 of annual income this is something every IRA should understand before investing into a REIT.
