Source: http://spotidoc.com/doc/38637/are-more-underappreciated-than-the-drafting-of-few-legal-.
Timestamp: 2019-01-23 18:11:14
Document Index: 11797436

Matched Legal Cases: ['§704', '§2701', '§704', '§721', '§857', '§514', '§704', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§465', '§351', '§1', '§65', '§355', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§514', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§704', '§514', '§514']

BY TERENCE FLOYD CUFF
FEW LEGAL TASKS are more underappreciated than the drafting of
the various types of partnership agreements: partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies. The task of drafting partnership agreements, whether for real estate partnerships or for other
partnerships, can test the skills of even the most proficient real estate
or corporate practitioner, estate planner, or partnership tax lawyer.
General-purpose form partnership agreements typically are defective.
Efficient drafting practices, which emphasize cost-effectiveness over
quality, only further compound the deficiencies.
A partnership agreement easily can go awry. A seemingly simple
partnership agreement can encroach on complex issues of tax law, partnership law, fiduciary law, or real estate law. Many drafters fail to recognize sophisticated problems and danger areas.1 Partnership agreements too often suffer from the arrogance, complacency, incompetence,
false economy, and inattention to detail of drafters. The question is
not so much whether the standard form real estate partnership agreement will break down in practice but rather how much stress it can
withstand before it breaks down. Defective partnership agreements
can create serious economic problems. This can lead to litigation or
to errors and omissions problems for drafters and their firms. A frequent problem is that, at the liquidation of the partnership, the partnership agreement provides for a cash distribution scheme different
from what one or more partners expect. One partner frequently
undertakes or wishes to undertake actions that could breach fiduciary
duties owed to another partner or to the partnership.
While a full treatment of the issues raised in drafting partnership
agreements would be treatise length, it is helpful to identify some of
the most common deficiencies in real estate partnership agreements.
Drafters need to learn more about the applicable laws in these areas,
or perhaps to call in more sophisticated reinforcements.
As a first step, the drafter must choose the jurisdiction in which
to form a partnership. California attorneys may feel a parochial
interest in forming partnerships under California law. Other practitioners may be more comfortable forming partnerships under Delaware
law or perhaps Maryland law. Underwriters of securitized debt may
require partnership issuers of securitized debt to be formed under
Delaware law. Many partnerships are formed under Nevada law.2 The
partnership could also be formed under the law of the jurisdiction in
which the partnership will have its principal place of business or in
the jurisdiction in which it will conduct its principal operations.
No solution is correct for all partnerships. It is important, however, that the drafter understand the partnership laws of the jurisdiction
in which the partnership is formed. It is easy to become lost in subtleties of local law if the drafter forms partnerships under the laws
of many jurisdictions. Some practitioners imagine that they will
achieve state tax planning advantages by forming a partnership
under the laws of a specific jurisdiction. Typically, however, this will
not be the case.3
Jurisdictions conform substantially to uniform acts governing
partnerships. Courts of one jurisdiction may apply the decisional law
12 Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006
of another jurisdiction. A partnership agreement should be adapted
in accordance with the laws of the partnership’s jurisdiction of formation. It is good practice to involve local counsel to review the partnership agreement if a partnership is formed under the laws of a jurisdiction in which the drafter does not practice.
Delaware law can offer some advantages. The state has developed
the largest and most robust body of case law on partnerships. The
Delaware Chancery Court is familiar with handling business disputes.
It avoids jury trials, which may be available in other states. Delaware
law is flexible in permitting partnership agreements to waive or to
define fiduciary duties and on remedies to address defaults in capital contributions and other breaches of a partnership agreement.
Delaware law also permits series partnerships with limited liability
among the various series of assets of the partnership.4 Delaware
permits quick filing by facsimile. In addition, the merger of entities
can be more efficient if all the entities are formed under Delaware law.
Finally, practitioners in different states are more likely to be familiar with Delaware law governing partnerships than they are with the
laws of other jurisdictions not their own.
Another initial issue is to define the purposes of the partnership
to limit the scope of its business. The purposes provision in the partnership agreement, for example, can be used to force dissolution of
a partnership upon the sale of an apartment project and to prevent
a like-kind exchange of the partnership’s assets, in appropriate cirTerence Floyd Cuff is a partner at Loeb & Loeb in Century City, where he specializes in partnerships and federal income taxation of partnerships.
cumstances.5 The purpose perhaps should
be sufficiently flexible to permit a like-kind
exchange if the client desires to undertake an
exchange in the future. Consider limiting the
purpose of an investment partnership, in
appropriate circumstances, to investment
activities in order to prevent subdivision and
sale of real property or perhaps conversion of
apartments to condominiums. It is also important to include special limitations on the
activities of the partnership consistent with the
nature of the client if it is a tax-exempt organization or a real estate investment trust.6
Real estate partnerships often are formed
with in-kind capital contributions of property
by one or more partners. In such cases, the
partnership agreement should contain practically all the provisions of a well-drafted
purchase and sale agreement (warranties and
representations, closing conditions, prorations, title insurance, etc.). A long-form purchase and sale agreement typically is a good
starting point in drafting the partnership
agreement provisions governing in-kind capital contributions. These terms can be incorporated into the partnership agreement or a
separate capital contribution agreement.
Drafters should also consider the possibility
that the contributor will have to make cash
payments to satisfy breached warranties and
should clarify the intended tax and capital
account treatment of these warranty payments.
A special tax law governs allocations of
future depreciation and gain or loss with
respect to contributed property in situations
in which there is a variation between the fair
market value on the date of contribution and
the adjusted tax basis.7 The partnership agreement should select the methodology that the
partnership will use to apply these tax requirements.8 The partnership agreement should
consider how these provisions will apply if the
property is contributed further to a subsidiary
partnership, or whether such a contribution
should even be permitted. Furthermore,
income and loss allocations should be
adjusted to take into account this special tax
Rules concerning tax allocations with
respect to contributed property typically
apply on an asset-by-asset basis. Land and
improvements are treated as separate assets
for this purpose. Different improvements
(such as different buildings) may be different
assets for this purpose. The partnership agreement (or a separate contribution agreement)
should schedule the agreed fair market value
and adjusted basis of each contributed asset,
separating land from improvements.
The partnership agreement might contain
a lock-in provision that prohibits the part-
nership from selling contributed property
during a defined period after the date of contribution. Lock-in provisions often contain
exceptions that permit partnerships to
exchange the contributed property in a nontaxable exchange or to sell the contributed
property in a taxable transaction if the partnership indemnifies the contributing partner
for the resulting tax liability. These indemnification provisions are long, detailed, and
complex. In the absence of these provisions,
if the partnership sells contributed property,
the contributor may suffer a substantial tax
liability, which can far exceed cash distributions to that party.
Contributions of property to the partnership also create issues under tax rules
governing disguised sales of property or disguised sales of partnership interests.9 A welldrafted partnership agreement should contain
a matrix of partnership covenants designed to
avoid disguised sale treatment. These
covenants, if drafted correctly, could ensure
that distributions will meet safe harbor
requirements under disguised sale rules.10
Partnership covenants, for example, could
prohibit distributions of contributed property
to another partner within a two-year safe
harbor period, consistent with applicable
partnership regulations.
Partners often need minimum shares of
partnership liabilities in order to avoid recognition of gain because of relief of contributed
liabilities or reduction of at-risk amounts
under IRC Section 465. Covenants in the
partnership agreement often obligate the partnership to ensure that a contributing partner
will have a sufficient share of partnership
liabilities so as not to suffer gain because of
liability relief or at-risk recapture. Partners
often enter into a separate agreement with a
partnership in order to ensure that minimum
amounts of liabilities will be allocated to the
partners and to ensure avoidance of gain
because of liability relief or at-risk recapture.11
Yet another obscure tax provision can
affect gain or loss associated with property
contributed to the partnership by a partner.
IRC Section 724 locks in unrealized receivables and inventory items as ordinary income.
The lock-in period for unrealized receivables
is permanent, while the period for inventory
items is five years. Section 724 also provides
that loss recognized by a partnership with
respect to contributed capital loss property
will be locked in as a capital loss in the partnership’s hands. This lock-in lasts for five
years. Drafters should therefore consider
including certain representations in the partnership agreement to address the character of
Drafters also need to be cautious in drafting a partnership agreement for a partnership
that is partially or wholly capitalized with
stocks and securities. Many advisers are surprised to learn that a transfer of property,
including a transfer of real property, to a
partnership that would be treated as an investment company if it were a corporation, is usually a taxable transaction. This frequently
arises with transfers to family partnerships
that are principally capitalized with stocks and
securities. The rules regarding in-kind capital contributions, as well as their application, are extremely complicated. Drafters
should seek assistance from competent tax
professionals to help them navigate through
the issues raised by these rules, such as the tax
liability of contributions to investment companies.12
When the initial partnership contribution
is in the form of cash, the drafting provisions should be less complicated than for inkind contributions. The partnership agreement should define precisely the form in
which cash will be contributed (for example,
by wire transfer of federal funds) as well as
the date by which capital contributions are
required to be made. Proposed Treasury
Regulations concerning the disguised sales
of partnership interests must also be consulted.13 (A disguised sale may occur when the
partnership assumes liabilities of the property
or makes a distribution to a contributing
partner.) Drafters should also consider a
matrix of covenants in the partnership agreement that addresses and diminishes the risks
of a disguised sale of a partnership interest to
a contributing partner. These covenants can
ensure that distributions will meet safe harbor requirements under disguised sale rules.
Partnership agreements often include provisions concerning additional capital contributions. These provisions should clarify who
may authorize the call for additional capital,
what limits govern the amount of additional
capital that partners can be required to contribute, whether additional capital contributions are required or discretionary, what procedures are required for the capital call, when
additional capital contributions are due, and
in what form the cash will be contributed.
To address defaults in additional capital
contributions, partnership agreements may
incorporate elaborate provisions that may
lead to the dilution or superdilution of the
partnership interest of a defaulting partner,
among other things. These provisions often
break down in several areas, and some advisers prefer not to incorporate them at all.
They argue that the partnership interest of a
defaulting partner should be retired for payments or forfeited by the defaulting partner.
Dilution provisions typically increase the
partnership interest of the partner making a
capital contribution on behalf of a defaulting
partner while decreasing the partnership interLos Angeles Lawyer January 2006 13
est of the defaulting partner. The provisions
must clearly indicate whether the dilution
provision resets and readjusts interests both
in profits/losses and in capital accounts. The
dilution provision must properly coordinate
with all the special distribution and allocation
provisions in the partnership agreement.
A dilution provision that resets and readjusts capital accounts may have undetermined
tax consequences that could create taxable
income to the partner to whom capital is
shifted. It may make sense to shift an interest in profits to the contributing partner, but
not to shift the interest in losses. It also may
not make sense to transfer a negative capital
account to a partner making a defaulted capital contribution of another partner. It may be
important to take into account special allocations and income chargebacks (including the
minimum gain chargeback) in drafting the
dilution clause. A provision in the partnership
agreement requiring a substantial chargeback of prior losses may vitiate the effects of
a dilution provision. A shift of a portion of
a defaulting partner’s negative capital account
to a contributing partner may not make economic sense. Drafters should test various
financial scenarios to ensure that the dilution
provision produces sensible economic results.
Dilution provisions often penalize a
defaulting partner for defaulting on his or her
additional capital contribution obligation.
In designing a provision to coerce the partner
to satisfy a capital contribution obligation,
remember that some courts may be reluctant to enforce punitive provisions14 especially if the defaulting partner is in bankruptcy. Although some state partnership acts
permit penalty provisions, the status of
penalty provisions approved by these acts
under bankruptcy law or under laws of other
states is still to be determined.15
A substantial body of literature considers
the tax effects of receiving a partnership interest (particularly a profits interest) as consideration for the performance of services.16
Proposed regulations recently roiled the
waters by concluding that the receipt of a
profits interest in a partnership in consideration of the performance of services is taxable
to the service provider (such as an associate
who is admitted as a partner to a law firm
partnership or a real estate promoter who
receives a “carried” interest in a partnership).17 (These regulations are merely proposed; they are not final and binding on taxpayers, nor on the IRS, but these regulations
provide clear insight into the IRS’s current
The proposed regulations permit the service provider’s income to be measured under
a safe harbor based on the amount that the
service provider would receive if the partnership sold its assets and immediately liq14 Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006
uidated at the time of the service partner’s
admission.18 This safe harbor provides that
the measure of the service partner’s income is
the amount that the service partner would
receive in the liquidation. To successfully
elect this safe harbor, the partnership agreement should contain provisions that are
legally binding on all partners, stating that 1)
the partnership is authorized and directed to
elect the safe harbor, and 2) the partnership
and each of its partners (including any person to whom a partnership interest is transferred in connection with the performance of
services) agree to comply with all requirements of the safe harbor with respect to all
partnership interests transferred in connection
with the performance of services while the
election remains effective.19
The measure of the service provider’s
income outside the safe harbor may be based
on the excess of the fair market value of the
partnership interest over any amount that
the partner may pay for that interest. This can
potentially apply in situations where the service provider contributes both cash and services as consideration for the partner’s interest in the partnership. Many partnerships
involve mixed contributions of cash and services. In this case, the election of liquidation
valuation in the partnership agreement is
particularly important. This election should
be included whenever a partner contributes
services to a partnership. (At least it will be
important if the proposed regulations are
finalized as they now are drafted.)
Perhaps nothing is more critical to the economics of a partnership than the cash distribution provisions in the partnership agreement. Cash distribution provisions can be as
simple as a single set of percentages or, at the
other extreme, may involve many tiers of
distributions and computations as complex as
internal rates of return. Many partnership
agreements contain flaws in the cash distribution provisions, which may result in inconvenient litigation.20
The drafter of a partnership agreement has
a choice between distributing proceeds of
liquidation of partnership assets in accordance with capital account balances at the end
of the partnership’s life and distributing the
proceeds in accordance with percentages (perhaps percentages in defined tiers). Treasury
Regulations concerning partnership allocations favor liquidation in accordance with
capital accounts.21 Experience, nevertheless,
has shown that many drafters’ income and
loss allocations are careless. Capital accounts
sometimes can depart materially from the
intended deal. Regardless of the drafter’s proficiency, he or she should work closely with
the partnership’s accountants in testing var-
ious financial scenarios to ensure that allocation provisions produce capital accounts
consistent with the economic deal.
The drafter may determine that the partnership should liquidate in accordance with
defined percentages or tiers of percentages.
This approach may make it more difficult to
determine how taxable income and losses
will be allocated annually. Liquidating by
defined percentages or tiers of percentages,
however, usually produces a more reliable
economic result than liquidation by capital
accounts. Special tax rules, however, make it
difficult for pension plans to invest in partnerships that do not liquidate in accordance
with capital accounts.22
While drafting cash allocation provisions
is, itself, an exceedingly complex undertaking,
some basic principles should be kept in mind.
Simple, single-tier percentage distribution
provisions are not difficult to draft (e.g., 25
percent to Elvira, 75 percent to Rapunzel).
Nevertheless, the drafter should clarify not
only how distributions are divided between
general and limited partners, but also how distributions are divided within each of these two
groups so that the allocation to each partner
is clear. In addition, how distributions are
divided within any class of partners receiving
a tier of distributions should be clarified.
A common distribution provision provides for a preferred percentage return on
invested capital. Important points that need
to be addressed in the provisions include:
• What contributions are included in invested
• What distributions reduce invested capital.
• On what date capital is treated as invested.
• On what date capital is treated as recovered.
• The interest rate of the return.
• Whether the return accumulates if there are
not funds available to pay the return annually.
• Whether the return compounds.
• How often the return compounds.
• The date the return compounds.
• The computational year (such as a deemed
year of twelve 30-day computational months
or a calendar year of 365/66 days).
• Whether arrearages in the return are paid
on liquidation if they are not paid out of
Another important distribution provision
provides for special priority distributions to
permit partners to pay taxes on their shares
of partnership income, so tax distribution
provisions need to be tested to see if they
will affect the economics of the deal. For
example, a tax distribution provision was at
the heart of the litigation in Interactivecorp
v. Vivendi Universal, S.A.23 In this case, the
Delaware Chancery Court held that approximately $600 million in tax payments to a
party under a tax distribution provision did
not reduce other cash distributions to the
partner under the partnership agreement
between Vivendi Universal and USA
Interactive.24
Avoid tax distribution provisions that
merely provide that the partnership will make
a distribution to a partner in an amount
equal to his or her tax liability from partnership income. These provisions are ambiguous. Better-drafted provisions typically are
based on notional tax liability.25 These welldrafted tax distribution provisions can be
complicated. Some of the issues that these provisions may address are:
• Notional combined federal and state tax
• Different tax rates for income of different
character (ordinary income, IRC Section 1250
recapture, capital gains, corporate dividends).
• Notional federal deduction for state tax.
• Quarterly cash distributions for estimated
• Clawback of excess tax distributions if
interim tax distributions exceed notional tax
• Clawback of tax distributions if income in
early years is followed by losses in later years.
• How tax distributions are recouped from
other future distributions.
• Exclusion (or inclusion) of income specially allocated to a partner under tax rules
concerning contributed property.
• Whether tax distributions are absolute distributions or whether they must be returned
if they are not fully recouped from other distributions to the partner.
Tax reimbursement provisions typically
should be based on the same notional tax rate
for all partners, regardless of whether some
partners are individuals and others are corporations, and regardless of whether some
partners live in different states than others or
move from one state to another.26
A distribution tier based on achieving a
defined internal rate of return on net invested
cash requires careful drafting. This includes
careful definition of the mathematics of internal rate of return,27 recognition that a partner rarely will achieve precisely any given
internal rate of return,28 and clear designation
of when contributions and distributions are
treated as paid. Inexperienced drafters should
avoid internal rate of return provisions whenever possible.
Again, many financial scenarios need to be
tested to ensure that the cash distribution
provision works satisfactorily if the partnership agreement includes a cash distribution
provision based on achieving a specified internal rate of return. Increases and decreases to
the base against which the internal rate of
return is computed need to be carefully
defined. Preferred return provisions are sensitive to when cash is deemed contributed
and when cash is deemed distributed, so it is
important to specify the formula used for
computing internal rate of return,29 the computational year, compounding frequency, and
compounding dates. These provisions should
also clarify how each distribution is divided
among partners receiving the distribution.
Some agreements define “internal rate of
return” merely in terms of the result of a
spreadsheet program. This sloppy drafting
practice could lead to ambiguities.30 The following should be considered when drafting
cash flow distribution provisions:
• Separate income and loss allocations from
cash flow distributions.
• Divide the cash flow distribution provision into three parts—operating cash flow,
cash flow from capital events, and proceeds
• Coordinate the drafting of preferred returns
and similar items that may be paid from
either operating cash flow, cash flow attributable to capital events, or proceeds of liquidation.
• Draft cash flow distribution provisions
before drafting allocations of profits and loss.
• Provide for liquidation in accordance with
capital accounts only if a drafter competent
in partnership allocations has drafted the
• Ensure that each tier of distributions not
only specifies how much cash flow to allocate
under the tier but also clearly states how
cash flow under the tier is distributed among
partners receiving distributions under the
• Test financial examples to ensure that the
allocations work.
• Coordinate the work with the partnership
accountants to ensure they can understand the
distribution and allocation provisions.
Federal tax law often requires tax withholding on distributions to foreign partners.
State tax laws may require tax withholding
on distributions to nonresidents or on nonresidents’ allocations of partnership income.
A provision in the partnership agreement
should authorize withholding on partner distributions. The partnership agreement also
should treat required withholding that exceeds
distributions to the partner as partner demand
Allocations of Partnership Income and
Allocations of partnership income and taxable
loss should accord with partnership economics.31 Allocations typically adjust capital
accounts so that each partner will receive
the amount in his or her capital account on
retirement or liquidation from the partnership.
This applies regardless of whether the partnership agreement explicitly distributes the
proceeds of liquidation in accordance with
I NK . G UARANTEED .
Ghostwriting services for
publish in trade and
818.709.6420
www.jvhcommunications.net
Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006 15
DRS TRAINING COURSES
■ 30-Hour Basic Mediation Training
January 30-February 3 • 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
■ Effectively Representing Your Clients in Mediation—
February 23 • 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Courses will be held in the LACBA-LexisNexis Conference Center
For further information, call Gemma George at 213-896-6441 or
go to www.lacba.org/drs
261 S. FIGUEROA ST. SUITE 310
Offices also in Pasadena, Long Beach & West Hollywood
16 Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006
capital accounts. These allocations must be
drafted carefully so that capital accounts and
cash distributions will agree and will “zero
out” each partner’s capital account by the time
of liquidation. Here, too, various financial scenarios should be tested to ensure that allocations are correct.32
Certain allocation provisions (such as the
minimum gain chargeback) reflect special tax
concerns that are embedded in tax regulations.33 The partners must understand these
concepts, since they will affect their capital
accounts and ultimately may affect how cash
is distributed. A drafter who does not understand these concepts should seek help from
The drafter also should understand the difference between cash distribution provisions
and tax allocation provisions. Cash is green.
Cash is spendable. Taxable income is not.
Taxable income is reportable on a partner’s
tax return. Taxable losses can reduce a partner’s tax liability.
Drafters need to take into account the
possibility of “phantom gain” (which occurs
when property is sold subject to a nonrecourse liability in excess of its tax basis, and
thereby creates gain excess of net cash) in situations in which allocations of taxable income
exceed distributions of cash flow. Substantial
gain may be allocated to partners, while cash
will go toward repayment of partnership liabilities or payment of partner capital contributions. Partnership agreements can include
provisions that will mitigate the effects of
tax liability without cash flow if they understand the consequences of “phantom gain.”
Provisions allocating taxable income and
tax losses should be separate from those allocating cash distributions. It is not sufficient
to provide that taxable income will be allocated in the same manner as cash distributions
because doing so can result in the double
return of capital contributions. Cash distributions include distributions returning
invested cash, for which income allocations
are not appropriate. A provision that merely
allocates taxable income to follow cash distributions often will distort the economic
deal as it allocates taxable income to partners
receiving return of their capital investments.
Furthermore, the timing of taxable income
and cash distributions frequently will differ.
A partnership agreement for a real estate
partnership typically will contain a series of
allocation provisions mandated by regulations. These provisions include the minimum
gain chargeback, partner minimum gain
chargeback, qualified income offset, and allocation provisions for nonrecourse deductions
and partner nonrecourse deductions. These
provisions typically apply prior to other allocations. “Nonrecourse liabilities” are liabilities for which no partner has personal lia-
bility. The excess of nonrecourse liabilities
over the adjusted basis of the collateral is
referred to as minimum gain. “Nonrecourse
deductions” are defined as the annual increase
in minimum gain. The annual nonrecourse
deductions correspond to the annual increase
in nonrecourse liabilities over the adjusted tax
basis of the security for these nonrecourse liabilities.
When minimum gain is reduced, such as
on a sale of the collateral for nonrecourse liabilities, the “minimum gain chargeback”
applies to allocate the income corresponding
to the minimum gain to the partners who
received prior allocations of nonrecourse
deductions. This highest-priority allocation
occurs prior to any other allocation under the
“Partner nonrecourse liabilities” are nonrecourse liabilities wherein a partner bears the
economic risk of loss of the liabilities.34
Partner nonrecourse deductions correspond
to nonrecourse deductions, but partner nonrecourse deductions apply to partner nonrecourse debt. The “partner minimum gain
chargeback” similarly applies to reductions
in partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain.
The partner minimum gain chargeback allocates income to partners to whom partner
nonrecourse deductions were previously allocated in situations in which partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain is reduced, such
as on the sale of the collateral.
The qualified income offset is a technical
tax allocation provision that rarely applies,
but normally should be included in a real
estate partnership agreement. This provision
will create special income allocations in certain circumstances in which a partner has a
deficit balance in his or her capital account (in
excess of any limited dollar amount of the
deficit balance that the partner is obligated to
restore) as of the end of the partnership taxable year. The qualified income offset will
apply to the extent that the deficit balance in
a partner’s capital account is subject to unexpected 1) adjustments that are reasonably
expected to be made as of the end of the
year to the partner’s capital account for depletion allowances with respect to oil and gas
properties of the partnership, 2) allocations
of loss and deductions that are reasonably
year to the partner pursuant to the family
partnership rules, partnership varying interest rules, and collapsible partnership rules, and
3) distributions that are reasonably expected
to be made as of the end of the year to the
partner to the extent they exceed offsetting
increases to the partner’s capital account that
reasonably are expected to occur during (or
prior to) the partnership taxable years in
which the distributions reasonably are
Got Tax Opinion?
If not, then call
Kneave Riggall, Esq.
2006 Southern California Super Lawyer
AV-rated Since 1993
Author of 30 Tax Articles
Adjunct Professor, Loyola Tax LL.M. Program
(626) 799-7219
ec onomic damages
los t profits
fair c ompens ation
financ ial feas ibility
highes t and bes t us e
partners hip interes t /s toc k value
leas e dis putes
reorganization plan feas ibility
Waronzof A s s oc iates , Inc orporated
12200 W. O lympic B lvd., S uite 480
L os Angeles , C A 90064
310.954.8060 T
310.954.8059 F
JEI>?87Z_]_jWbYef_[h"
JEI>?87Z_]_jWbYef_[ "
WbWme\\_Y[iX[ij\h_[dZ
9EFO<7N9ECCKD?97J?EDI
d[[Zgh D;MB7987C[cX[h8[d[\_j$
)&E\\ dcVaabdYZahd[ cZl
6jidbVi^X)&E\\
JEI>?87
JEI>?879ef_[hi
i]Vi9efo"<Wn"Fh_djVcY
IYWdid;#cW_b$
7KJEC7J?9)&:?I9EKDJ
Fj^X`VcY:Vhn"CdEg^X^c\7ViiaZ
B?C?J;:J?C;FHECE
<H;;Eg^ciVcYHXVc:cVWaZg[dg
CZildg`^c\Eg^ci^c\VcYHXVcc^c\
IF;9?7BB;7I;
%9dlc"%>ciZgZhiAZVhZ
>cXajYZh6aaHZgk^XZVcYHjeea^Zh#
<KBBH;FB79;C;DJM7HH7DJO
>iGjchG^\]i6alVnhdg>ihGZeaVXZY
I[hl_d]j^[B$7$B[]Wb9ecckd_joi_dY['/.-
+(,,Ioij[c:h_l[  >kdj_d]jed8[WY^
J[b0-'*$./($(*** <Wn0 -'*$./($(**'
Fb[Wi[YedjWYj0:Wd[H[X[hi 6 -'*$./($(*** [nj '',
;#cW_b0ZWd[6Yefo\Wn$d[j eh ^jjf0 %%mmm$Yefo\Wn$d[j
Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006 17
Even advanced practitioners often have
difficulty drafting the minimum gain chargeback, partner minimum gain chargeback,
qualified income offset, and allocation provisions for nonrecourse deductions and partner nonrecourse deductions. Consider drafting these provisions by cross-referencing the
applicable partnership Treasury Regulations.35
Beyond these special regulatory allocations, partnership allocations will reflect the
underlying economics of the partnership.
Allocations of net income and net losses will
be reflected in partnership capital accounts.
Partners should receive the amount in their
capital accounts upon termination of the
partnership, regardless of whether the partnership explicitly distributes the proceeds of
liquidation in accordance with partnership
Complicated partnership allocations normally are the province of an experienced tax
lawyer. Financial scenarios that forecast how
the allocations would work under a variety
of economic assumptions should be tested
with the cooperation of the partnership
accountants to confirm that the allocations
work and to confirm that they are understandable. Drafters who are unsure of their
allocations should consider providing that
the partnership will liquidate in accordance
with specified percentages or tiers of percentages, rather than in accordance with partners’ capital accounts.
Some agreements allocate gross income
and gross deductions, but these agreements
are difficult to draft. It usually makes more
sense to allocate net income and net losses,
concepts that need to be carefully defined.
Some agreements allocate net income and
net losses as computed in accordance with
Other agreements allocate net taxable income
and net taxable losses. It typically makes the
most sense to allocate net income and net loss
as computed in accordance with the Treasury
Regulations governing capital accounts.36
Net income and net loss allocated in such a
way are often referred to as “book income”
and “book loss,” respectively. A carefully
drafted partnership agreement might adjust
book income and book loss by excluding
items that are allocated under special allocations provisions, such as the minimum gain
chargeback, partner minimum gain chargeback, nonrecourse deductions, partner nonrecourse deductions, and other special allocation provisions.
Drafting income allocations corresponding to a preferred return typically requires
allocating income that parallels the accrual
(rather than the distribution) of the preferred
return. Drafting income allocations corresponding to an internal rate of return should
be left to an expert drafter.37 Merely provid18 Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006
ing income allocations for preferred returns
and returns based on internal rate of return
that allocate taxable income to a partner
until he or she has been paid the required
return will normally produce unsatisfactory
Special rules apply to allocations in partnership agreements in situations in which
certain qualified organizations38 are direct
or indirect partners.39 Allocations for these
partnership agreements are subject to a series
of complex “fractions rules” that must be satisfied in order for the otherwise tax-exempt
entity to avoid taxable income because of
partnership liabilities. Drafting partnership
allocations for these partnerships is a complex
task that should be left to specialists.
No matter its quality, no form agreement
can substitute for thought, experience, and
careful lawyering. As in any area of the law,
practitioners need to be mindful of their own
limitations in skill and knowledge and seek
help when needed. Above all, draft like a
professional, not like a mere scrivener.
20 Years of Experience in Business,
Real Estate, Entertainment, Commercial,
Employment, Insurance and Trust Litigation.
15 years of teaching conflict resolution
JD degree and PhD in Communication
telephone (310) 552-9800 facsimile (310) 552-0442
1901 Avenue of the States, Suite 400, Los Angeles, California 90067
Drafters should consider many tax issues in addition
to those discussed in this article. For example, they
should become familiar with the family partnership
rules of I.R.C. §704(e) and the special valuation rules
of I.R.C. §2701. Drafters also should consider the
effects of a series of disguised sales rules variously
under I.R.C. §§704(c)(1)(B), 707(a)(2)(B), and 737.
Drafters are cautioned to consider the investment company rules of I.R.C. §721(b) that can cause contributions to certain partnerships to be fully taxable. These
rules particularly should be considered if a partnership
includes securities as assets.
2 Drafters also should consider the form of entity: general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability
partnership, or limited liability company. The partnership’s decision process should include tax treatment under local law.
3 Some states will impose franchise or other taxes on
partnerships or limited liability companies. For example, California imposes a minimum tax on limited
partnerships and a fee on limited liability companies,
and Texas imposes a franchise tax on limited liability
4 Series partnerships and limited liability companies are
perhaps the most revolutionary entity available. Series
partnerships permit different classes of interests associated with different classes of assets. The economic
interests can be varied across classes. The series can be
established so that liabilities of one series will not
infect assets of another series.
5 Sometimes the partnership agreement will be drafted
to permit an exchange despite the objections of one of
the partners. See Trump v. Cheng, Index No.
602877/05 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2005) (Donald
Trump failing in his argument that the partnership
was not permitted to undertake an exchange of the former Penn Central rail yards on the Hudson River
waterfront for the Bank of America building in San
6 These limitations, for example, might limit “dealer”
activities that could attract the penalty tax under I.R.C.
§857(b)(6) and might require that income constitute
“rents from real property.” A pension plan investor
might insist on provisions in the partnership agreement
that address liabilities-financed income. See I.R.C.
§514(c)(9)(E).
Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006 19
I.R.C. §704(c)(1)(A).
See Treas. Reg. §1.704-3.
9 See Treas. Reg. §§1.704-4, 1.707-3, 1.707-4, 1.7075, 1.707-6, 1.737-1, 1.737-2, 1.737-3, 1.737-4, 1.7375; Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.707-7.
10 See Treas. Reg. §§1.704-4, 1.707-3, 1.707-4, 1.7075, 1.707-6, 1.737-2; Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.707-7.
11 I.R.C. §§465(e), 752(a), (b).
12 I.R.C. §§351(e), 721(b).
13 Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.707-7.
14 See, e.g., Freedman v. Rector, 230 P. 2d 629, 632
(1951) (holding that any provision that leads to forfeiture without regard to the actual damage suffered
would be an unenforceable penalty) and Garrett v.
Coast & Southern Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 108 Cal.
Rptr. 845 (1973) (“An agreement which provides for
the payment of a penalty if a breach occurs is invalid.”).
15 See generally WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS §65:1 (“A
liquidated damages provision will be held to violate
public policy, and hence will not be enforced, when it
is intended to punish or has the effect of punishing a
party for breaching the contract.); R ESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §§355 and 356.
16 See, e.g., Prop. Treas. Reg. §§1.83-3(e), 1.83-6(b).
17 See Prop. Treas. Reg. §§1.83-3(e).
18 Treas. Reg. §1.83-3(l)(1).
19 Treas. Reg. §1.83-1(l)(1)(ii).
20 See Interactivecorp v. Vivendi Universal, S.A., C.A.
No. 20260 (Del. Ch., July 6, 2004).
21 See Treas. Reg. §1.704-1.
22 I.R.C. §514(c)(9)(E).
23 Interactivecorp, C.A. No. 20260 (Del. Ch., July 6,
24 See Rita Farrell, Victory for InterActiveCorp in Tax
Dispute with Vivendi, NEW YORK TIMES (July 2, 2004).
25 It also is possible to base provisions on actual tax liabilities. These provisions typically involve “with and
without” computations. They should set forth a mechanism for making the computations, such as designating a neutral accountant to make them.
26 Another alternative is to require that distributions
be at least a given percentage of the partnership’s taxable income.
27 Drafters are discouraged from defining internal rates
of return by referents to results of a spreadsheet program (such as Lotus 1-2-3 or Excel). Defining an internal rate of return in terms of the results of spreadsheet
calculations may incorporate unwanted conventions
(such as an unwanted computational year) and could
create unwanted results in the case of software failure.
The internal rate of return involves solving a high
order polynomial. This usually is undertaken through
an iterative search (using systematic trial and error,
applying techniques of numerical analysis) on a calculator or computer.
28 For example, an additional $0.01 of cash distributed
may take a partner from a 6.99997% internal rate
return to a 7.00003% internal rate of return. A partner may never receive precisely a 7% internal rate of
return. A tier defined in terms of “until X receives a 7%
internal rate of return” may be problematic.
29 An elegantly drafted provision normally should
eliminate imaginary number solutions to the internal
30 Drafting income allocations is particularly challenging when cash distributions tiers are defined in
terms of achieving a particular internal rate of return.
31 Partnership agreements often technically allocate
net “book” income and net “book” loss, defined under
principles of the capital account maintenance regulations found at Treas. Reg. §1.704-1(b)(2)(iv).
32 A partner can be bankrupted by tax liability resulting from allocations of partnership income without corresponding distributions.
See Treas. Reg. §1.704-2 (nonrecourse deduction regulations).
34 “‘Partner nonrecourse debt’ or ‘partner nonrecourse
liability’ means any partnership liability to the extent
the liability is nonrecourse for purposes of section
1.1001-2, and a partner or related person (within the
meaning of section 1.752-4(b)) bears the economic
risk of loss under section 1.752-2 because, for example, the partner or related person is the creditor or a
guarantor.” Treas. Reg. §1.704-2(b)(4).
35 These various provisions (other than the qualified
income offset) are defined and detailed in Treas. Reg.
§1.704-2. The qualified income offset is covered in
Treas. Reg. §1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d).
36 Treas. Reg. §1.704-1(b)(2)(iv). This technique
excludes from net income and net losses those items that
are specially allocated under the rules of §704(c)(1)(A)
that apply to built-in gain and losses at the time property is contributed to the partnership.
37 The problem is created by annual differences between
net income and cash distributions. Income allocations
can precede cash distributions. A drafter does not
know how much cash will be distributed under a tier
providing for distributions until a partner achieves a
specified internal rate of return. This makes it difficult
to know how much income to allocate corresponding
to the tier providing for a distribution necessary to
achieve a prescribed internal rate of return. The drafter
may allocate too much income under the income tier
corresponding to the internal rate of return distribution
tier if income is allocated under this tier until a partner receives cash distributions giving the partner the
specified internal rate of return.
38 Such as tax qualified pension plans, educational
organizations, or other organizations defined in I.R.C.
§514(c)(9)(C).
39 I.R.C. §514(c)(9)(E).
Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Announces the Expansion of the Firm’s Litigation Department:
Jeffrey N. Brown • James L. Goldman • I. Bruce Speiser • Alan S. Petlak • Linda Donner
Our litigation practice continues to focus on all aspects of real estate, as well as general commercial, corporate,
insurance, financial and bankruptcy matters. Our litigation department provides negotiation and drafting advice,
pre-dispute counseling, and litigation in federal and state courts as well as alternative dispute resolution forums.
For more information, please call any of our litigation lawyers at 310.201.8900
or visit our website at: www.pircher.com
1925 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067 • Phone: (310) 201-8900 • Fax: (310) 201-8922
900 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611 • Phone: (312) 915-3112 • Fax: (312) 915-3348
20 Los Angeles Lawyer January 2006
Drafting Partnership Agreements and Operating Agreements: Selected issues
Checkpoint Contents Federal Library Federal Editorial Materials WG&L Journals
AMENDED AND RESTATED OPERATING AGREEMENT OF LAKE AREA CORN PROCESSORS, LLC
Financial Policy Manual FY 2014 Student Association Finance Committee 2012-2013
Allocation Based Versus Distribution Based Partnership Agreements Exhibit Partnership Agreement Provisions and
LLC Operating Agreement Mark D. Anderson
Document 174431
Document 42532
Official Journal of the European Communities L 49/3 19.2.98 PARTNERSHIP AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT