On May 28, 2025, in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2025-52) (“Soroban II”), the Tax Court held the active role of limited partners in a fund manager caused them to fail to qualify as “limited partners” for purposes of section 1402(a)(13) and, therefore, the limited
One Big Beautiful Bill: Update on Provisions for Sports Industry
Update (6/18/2025): On June 16, 2025, the Senate released its revised draft of the tax legislation (the “Senate Draft Bill”). Neither of the two proposed changes that would have been particularly relevant for the sports industry, as described in our previous blog post (shown below), was included in
The One Big Beautiful Bill: Relevant Provisions for Sports Industry
- The House Draft Bill would limit the amortization of a professional sports franchise and related
The One Big Beautiful Bill: SALT Deduction Workarounds Under Fire
On May 12, 2025, House Republicans unveiled a comprehensive 389-page package of tax provisions, setting the stage for a significant tax bill to be debated in the coming weeks. Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” this proposal aims to extend and modify many key provisions of the Tax Cuts and
Final Regulations Issued on Allocation of Partnership Liabilities Under Section 752
Introduction
On December 2, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) published final regulations (the “Final Regulations”) on section 752[1] regarding the allocation of partnership recourse liabilities in situations in which multiple partners and related parties bear part or all of
Trump Administration Disavows the OECD Global Tax Deal
On January 20, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum (the “Memorandum”)[1], announcing that the “Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal” (the “Global Tax Deal”) has “no force or effect in the United States” and disavowing “any commitments” previously made by the United States
Tax Court Holds That Active Limited Partners of State Law Limited Partnerships May Be Subject to Self-Employment Tax
Introduction
Section 1402(a)(13) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the distributive share of “limited partners, as such” from a partnership is not subject to self-employment tax.[1] Managers of private equity and hedge funds are routinely structured as limited partnerships to exclude management and incentive fees from self-employment
Tax Court Rules that Extensions of Variable Prepaid Forward Contracts Do Not Result in Taxable Exchanges
Last week, in McKelvey v. Commissioner¸[1] the U.S. Tax Court held that the extension of a typical variable prepaid forward contract (“VPFC”) did not give rise to a taxable exchange to the obligor because a VPFC is solely an obligation, and not property, within the meaning of section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Court also noted this result is consistent with the usual treatment of a VPFC as an “open transaction”. This decision is very good news for an obligor under a VPFC (that is, the party required under the contract to deliver cash or stock at the end of the term of the VPFC), that wishes to extend a VPFC without tax consequences. If the decision is upheld on appeal under the Tax Court’s reasoning, the case would seem to apply equally an obligor that extends a conventional option, and could even provide a basis for debtors to argue that a modification of their debt does not give rise to an exchange (and thus, does not give rise to cancellation of indebtedness income) notwithstanding Treasury regulations section 1.1001-3. However, the Tax Court’s reasoning in McKelvey is in some tension with other authorities and, if taken at face value, could create opportunities for significant tax deferral on a wide variety of financial products.
Final and Temporary Debt-Equity Regulations Issued by the IRS
On October 13, 2016, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issued final and temporary regulations under section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code. The final and temporary regulations recharacterize certain debt instruments as equity for all federal income tax purposes.
The final and temporary regulations narrow considerably the
Proposed Regulations Under Section 355 Clarify Device and Active Trade or Business Requirements for Spin-offs
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) have published proposed regulations that would modify the device and active trade or business requirements for tax-free spin-offs under section 355 of the Code in three important respects.
First, the proposed regulations clarify the “device” test and