Although it's been around, and used for the purposes discussed, for a long time, this technique is getting increased attention. It's a way to reduce gift and estate taxes while maintaining overall control, and to protect your assets from the claims of creditors as well.

Basics of Limited Partnerships
The Discount Partnership
Asset Protection
Conclusion

Basics of Limited Partnerships

In a usual partnership, all partners are general partners. Each is responsible for the debts of the business -- totally. One person, who may have a 1% stake in the business, could be sued by creditors if the business went bust. They could recover all the debts from him personally. He'd have a right of contribution from his partners -- but if they couldn't be found, or were themselves bankrupt -- tooooooooo bad. Furthermore, from an outsider's standpoint, every partner has apparent authority to enter into contracts and bind the partnership. This can make the key partner -- the manager -- nervous.

Enter the limited partnership. Like the corporation, it is a creature of statute because it's an exception to the general rule, and the rules must be complied with. If it's done right -- X can put in $10,000 -- and be limited in his loss. If the business goes bad, he may lose everything he's put in -- he may even lose more if he's voluntarily signed notes, etc. -- but he knows the extent of his risk. He cannot lose more than he's agreed to put in. The rest of his assets are safe.

In exchange for this safety, he's given up the right to have any say in the business, and the right to apparently represent the business. He is strictly an investor. The actual running of the business is done by one or more general partners. They are the ones responsible for business debts. For them, the normal partnership rules apply. It has served as a way to raise money for their activities (running a grocery, operating real estate, having a stock portfolio, etc.) while retaining control.

The partnership agreement will spell out the respective rights of the parties, including their respective interests in profits and in liquidation. It may say that the limited partners put in 99% of the money and get 95% of the profits, and 98% of the proceeds on liquidation. It usually restricts the ability to transfer interests.

The partnership may show a profit -- but that doesn't put money in the partners' pockets. The general partner can usually decide how much to distribute, or how much to hold back for the needs of the business.

From a tax standpoint, the partnership is a conduit. Each partner is taxed on his share of the income, whether or not he received it.

A family limited partnership has no special legal nature. It is simply a partnership whose members happen to be family members. It is governed by the same rules as other limited partnerships. In the past, it might have been used to give kids a stake in the farm, or in investments, without letting them interfere in the management.

With that background, let's look at two uses that have gotten current popularity.

^Back to top


The Discount Partnership

John comes to you with a great offer. A limited partnership has been formed. His cousin Harry is the general partner. Several family members have put in contributions. The partnership has $1,000,000 of cash. Not land. Not stock. Not even bank accounts. $1,000,000 of green paper. John has a 5% partnership interest. But he got carried away when he put in so much -- he really needs the money for other needs. Would you buy a 1% interest for $10,000? You think about it -- a 1% interest in $1,000,000 of cash. That's certainly worth $10,000.

But you discuss it with your lawyer who points out:

You have no way of getting at that cash unless the partnership is dissolved, and you can't force a dissolution. That cash might be invested in Arizona swampland next week -- you have no say over what is going to happen.

Even if it's invested in a good operation and makes money -- you may not see the profit if the general partner decides to hold on to it. But you'll be taxed on it.

If you want to re-sell your interest, the partnership agreement restricts your right to transfer or sell to outsiders.

Does it still look like such a reasonable deal? Are you still interested in paying $10,000 for that 1% interest in $1,000,000 cash? Or, if you're interested at all, would you offer a lot less to reflect the risks and problems?

This, simply put, is the heart of the interest in limited partnerships -- that no willing buyer would in fact pay a percentage of the underlying value without getting a sharp discount. And so if John dies owning that partnership interest, or makes a gift of it, its value for tax purposes would be sharply reduced. A good estimate would be 20-50% discount from underlying asset value. And this discount is not a trick -- it's for real problems. John's asset is simply worth less than it appears.

Of course, one might say that it's illusory because he's not really at the risk of the general partner. Suppose John himself were the general partner? The problem really wouldn't exist. And no discount would be allowed -- in his estate. But if he gave some away -- the recipient of the gift doesn't have that control, so a discount would be available for gift tax purposes on that interest. Suppose the partners were John and his wife? Already, the degree of control is slipping. And while family members may feel absolute trust in each other and not worry about the risks -- the buyer of that interest isn't a family member and can't count on the love of the general partner.

Okay, how do we use it?

You form a limited partnership to own most of your investment assets. With many variations, the General Partners can be you and your living trust, or you and your spouse, both, etc. The general partners may own perhaps a 2% interest in the partnership. 1% is owned by an unrelated trusted outsider (who has the power to prevent liquidation -- therefore you and your family cannot liquidate and remove the restrictions). The balance is owned by you (or you and spouse, etc.) as limited partners.

Now, if you give away those limited partnership interests, they are valued at a discount.

For estate tax purposes, you should have at least one other General Partner (e.g. your spouse) to make a case for a discount on your limited partnership interests.

In recent years, Congress has taken at least one step against this. 2704(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code now provides that, in valuing interests, I. R. S. may disregard restrictions on liquidation which may be removed by the family. And so it is desirable to have a non-family member whose consent is required for dissolving the partnership. Furthermore, some recent proposals would change these rules.

^Back to top


Asset Protection

Suppose, before John is able to sell his limited partnership interest, a creditor sues him, gets a judgment and starts to collect. He levies on John's bank account and gets that turned over to him. He levies on John's stock, gets that turned over to him, and sells it to raise cash. He levies on John's limited partnership interest -- and that's when problems start. Even if he could get the partnership interest turned over to him, he'd have a heck of a time selling it for cash (see above). But he can't even get that far. Under the terms of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, the only remedy of a creditor of a limited partner is a charging order. This is a right to receive distributions if, as, and when the general partner makes them. The creditor may not see any distributions. Neither might John if the creditor hadn't acted. But John would have been taxable on his share of partnership profits, even if he didn't receive them. Once the creditor gets his charging order, he stands in John's shoes tax-wise. He may receive taxable income without distributions.

Now suppose the same thing happens to Harry, the general partner. The creditor doesn't focus on the limited partnership interest -- he focuses on the general partnership interest. By getting that, he creates possible distributions. And so the bulk of the documentation is designed to protect from levy on the general partnership interest. We use a corporate general partner to bring in more dilution. We spread the stock around. We have a buy-sell agreement that's triggered by creditor action. And even if the creditor were somehow to get ownership of the stock -- he'd find that there's a shareholder voting agreement requiring him to vote for you and your spouse as directors, to elect one of you as president. In control of the corporation, you can get some money out as payment to the corporation for management, then out to you as salary (subject to 15%wage deduction, which isn't as bad as asset levying).

The key is to understand that this is a tool, not a cure-all. It depends on your not needing the money in the partnership, so you can outwait the creditor. I talked one lottery winner out of such a partnership -- he needed the distributions. It wouldn't provide much protection. But as long as they are assets which are there for security -- which you don't personally need in the near future -- you can afford to not distribute. And therefore the creditor ultimately says "can we talk?" and is open to settlement.

Weaknesses? To some people, it's just a "gimmick" which may get changed. But it's not that unusual. Realize there are some states with unlimited homestead exemptions -- people have been known to pour their assets into a million dollar house just before declaring bankruptcy. The "gimmick" works. Similarly, homes may be in tenancy by the entirety which are protected from levy of the creditor of one spouse.

There is a potential attack. The Fraudulent Conveyances Act enables the undoing of transfers designed to hinder creditors. While I'd be willing to defend on that if necessary (this isn't a transfer, it's a change of investment), you're far better off to avoid it. And the best way to avoid it is to have a balance sheet which shows that when you did it, you were fully solvent and had no outstanding claims.

^Back to top


Conclusion

Conclusion
Both of these uses (discounts for estate tax reduction and asset protection from creditors) require major professional planning and implementation. Don't blow a major step by getting unqualified help.

^Back to top

 

Website Copyright © 2004Web Design by Cherryone.com Website optimized by: Cherryone.com

Home ] [ Chicago Probate Attorney ] [ Chicago Probate Lawyer ] [ Illinois Probate Lawyer ] [ Probate Lawyer Chicago ] [ Chicago Tax Planning Lawyer ] [ Illinois Tax Planning Lawyer ] [ Chicago Wills and Trusts Attorney ] [ Illinois Wills and Trusts  Attorney ]