Discussion:Profits Interest in LLC/Partnership
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Profits Interest in LLC/Partnership
14 September 2007 | |
Does anyone have any experience with someone who is granted a profit interest in an LLC. I don't understand the concept of this: owners share in profits, but this person has no capital account, i.e. no ownership? I am trying to understand how this works practically. |
14 September 2007 | |
Interesting question. The granting of a profits interest generally is not a taxable event; whereas, the granting of a capital interest is almost always a taxable event. I suppose the difference becomes most meaningful in the year that the LLC decides to liquidate and only the members with capital interests are entitled to liquidation proceeds. |
14 September 2007 | |
Won't the person receiving the profits interest develop a capital account over time if he receives less in distributions than his allocated share of income? |
14 September 2007 | |
Well, it's very confusing to me because I understood that the whole purpose of it is to NOT have them accumulate capital in the enterprise. Profit to me means ownership, otherwise it's just a bonus to an employee on W-2. So are we then talking allocation of profit (income)? And if so, you are tinkering with a capital account. I'm missing something. |
14 September 2007 | |
And Riley: is my person then going to have to restore to the capital account due to this unequal allocation? I have been searching for the answer to this, and most of my research as always devolves into an investment type-short term LLC. My focus is on the operating LLC (engineering practice). |
14 September 2007 | |
I've seen this before, and you can reach your own decision as to whether or not it was done properly. Esp in a professional practice (you mention an engineering practice), it is a fairly easy way for a valued employee to earn the status of "partner" without having to part with any cash for a buy-in. He receives a profit interest, and again, by not drawing it all out, builds up an ownership interest as reflected in his capital account. If the stated purpose of this structure is to not have him accumulate capital, then I would assume that he will draw out his allocated income each year. In that case, probably easier to simply treat his allocation as a guaranteed payment. Once he receives the profit interest, I don't think he should receive a W-2. |
14 September 2007 | |
Oh no, in that senario I agree no W-2. That must be it, talk about a play on semantics, I've been going in circles because I know this is done. I don't want to even think now if this has substantial economic effect, as, quite frankly, I don't think anyone knows what the heck that means... they just trot it out, gotta comply with it (right!). |
15 September 2007 | |
A payment to a member that does not affect his capital account is considered to be a guaranteed payment. I see no problem with certain members being compensated in this fashion. Many law firms have "equity partners" and "non-equity partners." I suppose that I would prefer to be an equity partner since they would have to buy me out to get rid of me. |
15 September 2007 | |
One thing I have not done is to sit down and read our State's statutes, especially the Partnership statutues, where some of this may be defined (equity, non-equity partner etc). In the fact pattern JAD gave, I guess you could give the person a GP in an amount he could live on, and then allocate profits to him which he could decide to let build up in his capital account. As you say, a person could also recieve just a GP. These things are apparently even more flexible then what I had imagined. |
September 15, 2007 | |
Does anyone have any experience with someone who is granted a profit interest in an LLC. I don't understand the concept of this: owners share in profits, but this person has no capital account, i.e. no ownership? I am trying to understand how this works practically.
Profits interests are frequently used as equity-based compensation arrangements similar to corporate stock option plans. They provide an incentive to those members that are “doing the work” (i.e., sweat equity) - if the results of their efforts result in cumulative profits for the LLC then they will get a piece of the action. If their efforts result in the losses, such losses will be borne by the capital interest members (it's their money that's being lost). Issues can arise when the profit interest holders receive allocations of profits without a corresponding allocation of cash (i.e., the ”phantom income” problem) which usually happens when cash distributions are paid first to the capital members as a return of capital. In this case, the profits interests will become capital interests.
LOL - in the case of the profits interests, there should be no issue with substantial economic effect as long as any positive capital accounts are zeroed out via cash distributions at liquidation. |
15 September 2007 | |
Very helpful. I guess I'm still confused about the structure. How do you get a piece of the action unless you are an owner, unless it's a bonus. I know I must be on an elementary level, and obtuse about this, but I don't think I'm the only one. |
15 September 2007 | |
Will they establish this person's capital account after he has proven he can earn the profit? Then this gets back to Rileys first post. |
15 September 2007 | |
I once worked for a CPA firm that had "non-equity" partners. These individuals had enough of a client base that they shared in the profits, but I don't believe that they had any voting rights in the partnership. |
September 16, 2007 | |
How do you get a piece of the action unless you are an owner, unless it's a bonus?
You are getting a piece of the action because you are contributing services to the partnership in exchange for a percentage of the partnership's profits - in other words, the current partners agree to share the partnership's profits with the “service partner” (note: the profits that we are talking about in this context are the “future” profits (if any) of the partnership - NOT past profits). Will they establish this person's capital account after he has proven he can earn the profit? I think you may be hung up on the notion that a partner must have a capital account in order to be a partner - such is not the case. How a service partner's interest is structured, however, could have different tax consequences. The following are a few examples of different equity compensation arrangements for service partners: 1. Unrestricted Capital Interest - here the service partner receives an immediate right to share in the partnership's capital. In other words, if the partnership is liquidated the day after the service partner is admitted, such service partner would be entitled to share in the liquidation proceeds. A Riley noted above, this type of interest is generally taxable to the service partner at the time it is received. 2. Restricted Capital Interest - under this type of interest, the service partner is typically subject to a vesting requirement such as a years-of-service requirement. For example, a service partner might receive a partnership interest that entitles such partner to 10% of the partnership's capital after three years of service. Assume the value of the partnership at the date of admittance is $100,000 and the value at the end of the three year period is $500,000. If the service partner does not make a Sec. 83(b) election, the capital interest is not taxable until the fourth year at which point the service partner will have $50,000 of income ($500k x 10%) and the partnership will have a corresponding deduction. If the partner makes a Sec. 83(b) election, then the service partner's taxable income will be computed based on the value of the partnership at the time the interest was granted, which in this case is $100,000 - so the taxable income would be $10,000. 3. Unrestricted Profits Interest - under this type of interest, the service provider is only entitled to share in the future profits/appreciation accruing after the date of grant. The granting of a profits interest is generally not a taxable event (also not deductible by the partnership); however, there are some exceptions - see Rev. Proc. 93-27 and Rev. Proc. 2001-43. Also worth mentioning - since a partner cannot have dual status as a partner and an employee of the same partnership, the granting of a any interest in a partnership (including a profits interest) will result in many changes with respect to how income is reported [e.g., K-1, potential guaranteed payment vs. W-2, self employment taxes on guaranteed payments, may need to make estimated tax payments (i.e., no more withholding), etc.]. |
16 September 2007 | |
That is very helpful. As to your last point "Also worth mentioning.." I would not have assumed that a person with a profits interest (#3) would have gotten a K-1, I would have put it on his W-2 since he did not have an ownership stake (as I perceived it). Thanks for everyone's help here, its been an education for me. |
5 February 2009 | |
FTF65 -- Excellent summary !! Thanks to all of you for these comments :) Now it's easier to do further research. |
13 July 2010 | |
I have an LLC who has 7 members- 4 members who contribute cash, and three member-managers who contribute services for their interest in the partnership interest. I find it difficult to classify the membership interest as either a capital interest or a profit interest. Based on the operating agreement, the three managers hold class A units-meaning they have voting rights, manage the LLC....; however the operating agreement also states that upon liquidation, proceeds must first be returned to the investors who contributed money before anything gets to the non-contributing members (the managers). Based on the literature, it is not a capital interest if when the partnership were to liquidate immediately after date of grant nothing goes to the non-contributing members (members providing services.
I am leaning toward classifying the interest of the members contributing services as a non-taxable profit interest. Anybody agrees with me? any guidance or insights is greatly appreciated! |
July 13, 2010 | |
That's the right analysis. The operating agreement has capital account maintenance provisions, right? They should give zero initial balances to the non-contributing partners. |
14 July 2010 | |
LH2004, thank you for your help!
Does that mean that the managing members' income will be taxed as capital gains and not ordinary income? It seems the profit interest is carried interest, and carried interest is taxed as capital gains. Can anybody confirm that the members not contributing any money to the partnership, but only their services, and are getting a profit interest for it, will be taxes at capital gains rates? thank you all for your help! Stef |
July 14, 2010 | |
There isn't a rule that a carried interest is taxed at capital gains rates. The rule, until Congress changes it, is that the character of income passes through to the partners. If the partnership does something that mostly generates capital gains, like trading stocks or buying and selling businesses, as hedge funds, along with private equity and venture capital funds, do, then most of the partnership's income is going to be capital gains; if the managing partners get 20% of that net income, they'll mostly get capital gains. If the partnership generates ordinary income, that's what the partners will get.
An interest in the partnership is going to mostly produce capital gains on a sale. |
14 July 2010 | |
in the case of an LLC who is flipping houses, and is generating ordinary income. Is the ordinary income subject to SE taxes for the managing members (members who are only contributing their services and have a profit interest/carried interest)? |
July 14, 2010 | |
Assuming it's ordinary because that's a trade or business, in which the houses are inventory, the ordinary income is going to be subject to SE tax for all of the individual members, unless the exception for limited partners applies. |
14 July 2010 | |
I have been under the impression that such an arrangement would cause the profit-only partners who is only contributing services to receive ordinary income later on a partnership-level capital gain transaction unless an 83b election was filed at the time of granting the profit interest. |
4 November 2010 | |
I am confused on this issue. As Riley stated above, granting a capital interest is generally a taxable event when granted. However, if this capital interest is split into two parts, a profits interest and phantom stock, then the employee reports no compensation upon receiving the grants.The employee receives a percentage of the income via the profits interest, and a percentage of the proceeds upon a sale of the company via the phantom stock. Rather than being taxed upon receiving the grants, the employee is taxed only as the income is received (if it is ever received -- the company could fail to generate profits or to be sold).
There are some differences between granting an LLC interest versus granting a profits interest plus phantom stock, such as voting rights and other contractual or legal rights, but they seem somewhat minor considering the stark differences in tax treatment. |
Bretsharon (talk|edits) said: | 15 December 2010 |
Does anyone know what the status of the proposed regulations under §83, which I understand does not distinguish between capital versus profits interest? It explicitly rejects the theory that the receipt of a partnership interest in connection with services is not a realization event. see notice 2005-43. §1.83-3(e). |
Bretsharon (talk|edits) said: | 15 December 2010 |
does anyone have a profits interest agreement form they could share with me? |
December 15, 2010 | |
The regulations are still proposed. The changes they make from present law (as implemented by the older Rev. Proc.s and notices) are mostly in terminology: instead of talking about the receipt of a "profits interest" as a "nontaxable event," which doesn't make much sense, they'll say that the receipt of any partnership interest is taxable, subject to sec. 83, at the liquidation value of the partnership interest. What we call a "profits interest" is any interest with no liquidation value. You'll still be able to look at that value at the time of grant in many circumstances.
The big change will be that, absent an 83(b) election, the recipient of an unvested partnership interest won't be treated as a partner; this, of course, is consistent with sec. 83, but not Notice 2001-43. Thus, the holder of the unvested interest will have no income from partnership profits, and any distributions on his interest will be compensation. Any partnership agreement under which somebody's interest has no initial liquidation value evidences a profits interest. |
20 January 2011 | |
I'm okay with the difference between a profits interest and a capital interest. My question goes back to something I thought I understood 20 years ago when LLC's were just becoming popular. And that is that if someone sues you for everything you own the only thing they can get is a profits interest in any LLC that you own. If true, the LLC might pass through taxable income but no cash with which to pay the tax. Has anyone had experience with that? |
January 21, 2011 | |
Typically, a creditor of a member of an LLC (or, for that matter, an ordinary partnership) can't take the membership interest, he can only get a charging order on it, under which the LLC will pay to the creditor the amount that would otherwise be distributed to the debtor, up to the amount of the debt. The main significance of that distinction is that the creditor doesn't get voting rights, which might include the right to make those distributions happen; the other difference is that the creditor won't get any upside. Like, if you have an LLC interest currently worth $400, and I get a charging order for $500 on it, and things turn out well and the LLC ends up distributing $10,000 on your interest, I only get $500 of that. In any case, it's doubtful whether a creditor of the sole member of an LLC (or all the members of any LLC) would be subject to that limitation.
That has nothing to do with the tax distinction between profits and capital interests. Under most circumstances, the member should still be treated as the owner of the interest for tax purposes, so income should still be taxable to him, not the creditor. |
6 April 2011 | |
What the person has is an "Economic Interest" in the LLC. A person with an economic interest is entitled to a share of the profits and losses, but has no ownership interest unless they are admitted as a member. Therefore, they have no management functions or responsibilities and have no right to see the books of the LLC. Many times these people are creditors who are offered an economic interest because the LLC can't pay back the loan. |
Caronharte (talk|edits) said: | 11 April 2011 |
I have a client that has an LLC w/ 2 classes of Membership Interests. The Class A Members, according to the operating agreement, do not share in the allocation of profits and losses unless they are admitted as a member. Do I need to include the Class A member on the Form 1065 and does this Class A member receive a K-1 showing only zeros? |
11 April 2011 | |
describe the facts -- why LLC formed and why two classes were created. Often times different classes of membership units are created to effectuate project-by-project allocations. Or it could be a situation with capital partners and service partners. |
April 11, 2011 | |
If they have no share in profits or losses, they probably are not partners. |
11 April 2011 | |
they could have profits and losses on Class B units. For example, my client formed an LLC with his father. The first investment involved only my client's money; dad didn't like the idea. So they amended the OA to provide for two classes of units where that particular investment was tied to class A shares which my client owned 100%. The dad here is an attorney and chose this strategy. Class B is owned 50/50 for other investments made together. The OA states that dad does not share in profits/losses of class A shares. If there were additional Class A members perhaps there might be some language about restricting transfer of Class A shares to Class B holders unless a majority of non-selling class A holders approve the Class B holder for membership.
I just confused myself. |
11 April 2011 | |
I have a client whose LLC has multiple classes of units. The liquidation preferences of the Class A units are lower than those of class B. Class A also is allocated no profits or losses. Class A members will only realize a gain on the sale of their interest similar to a C corp shareholder. |
12 April 2011 | |
that is what you refer to as a "carried interest" correct? Did Congress ever pass legislation to tax those gains on a sale as ordinary income? |
9 January 2012 | |
I hate to bring back an old thread but I have a issue I was hoping one of you partnership guru's could help me with.
I have a client who sold his interest in his partnership, but retained a "profits interest" for the remainder of his life. Because the partnership owns property encumbered with debt, the partnership generates "phantom income" for the first 5 years since all the cash goes directly to the lender. To my understanding, his capital account builds until the partnership debt is paid off (in year 5) and the partnership has actual cash to make distributions. Once it has the cash and pays out the partners, only then will his capital account be reduced. My question is, what happens to his capital account when he does? Lets say his capital account is at $500k on the date of his death. Would it transfer to his estate and will the partnership be liable to pay it out on the date of his death? I'm worried because the partnership would have no cash and the other partner's do not want to be liable for his capital account if he dies before the debt is satisfied. |