Key takeaways from Turner and recent FLP cases

BVWireIssue #110-1
November 2, 2011

As we recently reported, the taxpayer in Estate of Turner failed to persuade the Tax Court to preserve the discounted value of a family limited partnership (FLP), due largely to the passive character of the transferred assets (marketable securities) and the partnership’s lack of any legitimate, non-tax business purpose, including any overriding investment philosophy.

The takeaways from Turner: If asset consolidation and centralized management are among the stated, non-tax purposes for the FLP, then “don’t hold passive assets; don’t have the same management [before as after formation]; and don’t have the same investment philosophy,” said Stacey Delich-Gould (Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP), who spoke at the recent 2011 Fall Meeting of the ABA Section of Taxation and Section of Real Property and Trust & Estate Law in Denver. “Do have arms-length bargaining” among the designated general and limited partnership interests, she added. The bottom line: “The [FLP] cases in which the estate has been successful in Tax Court have all come under the protection of the bona fide sale exception,” Delich-Gould said. “Therefore, a real, significant non-tax purpose for the partnership is an essential element of any successful plan.”

Please let us know if you have any comments about this article or enhancements you would like to see.