Photo of Stuart Rosow

Stuart Rosow is a partner in the Tax Department and a leader of the transactional tax team. He concentrates on the taxation of complex business and investment transactions. His practice includes representation of publicly traded and privately held corporations, financial institutions, operating international and domestic joint ventures, and investment partnerships, health care providers, charities and other tax-exempt entities and individuals.

For corporations, Stuart has been involved in both taxable and tax-free mergers and acquisitions. His contributions to the projects include not only structuring the overall transaction to ensure the parties' desired tax results, but also planning for the operation of the business before and after the transaction to maximize the tax savings available. For financial institutions, Stuart has participated in structuring and negotiating loans and equity investments in a wide variety of domestic and international businesses. Often organized as joint ventures, these transactions offer tax opportunities and present pitfalls involving issues related to the nature of the financing, the use of derivations and cross-border complications. In addition, he has advised clients on real estate financing vehicles, including REITs and REMICs, and other structured finance products, including conduits and securitizations.

Stuart's work on joint ventures and partnerships has involved the structuring and negotiating of a wide range of transactions, including deals in the health care field involving both taxable and tax-exempt entities and business combinations between U.S. and foreign companies. He has also advised financial institutions and buyout funds on a variety of investments in partnerships, including operating businesses, as well as office buildings and other real estate. In addition, Stuart has represented large partnerships, including publicly traded entities, on a variety of income tax matters, including insuring retention of tax status as a partnership; structuring public offerings; and the tax aspects of mergers and acquisitions among partnership entities.

Also actively involved in the health care field, Stuart has structured mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures for business corporations, including publicly traded hospital corporations, as well as tax-exempt entities. This work has led to further involvement with tax-exempt entities, both publicly supported entities and private foundations. A significant portion of the representation of these entities has involved representation before the Internal Revenue Service on tax audits and requests for private letter rulings and technical advice.

Stuart also provides regular advice to corporations, a number of families and individuals. This advice consists of helping to structure private tax-advantaged investments; tax planning; and representation before the Internal Revenue Service and local tax authorities on tax examinations.

A frequent lecturer at CLE programs, Stuart is also an adjunct faculty member of the Columbia Law School where he currently teaches Partnership Taxation.

On March 11, 2024, the Biden Administration released the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, and the “General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2025 Revenue Proposals,” which is commonly referred to as the “Green Book.” The Green Book summarizes the Administration’s tax proposals contained in the Budget. The Green Book is not

On November 15, 2023, the U.S. Tax Court held in YA Global Investments v. Commissioner[1] that a non-U.S. private equity fund (YA Global) with a U.S. asset manager that bought equity and convertible debt of U.S. portfolio companies was engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the United States for U.S. federal income tax purposes, all of its income was “effectively connected” to that trade or business, and the fund (which was treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes) was liable for penalties and interest for failing to withhold with respect to its non-U.S. corporate feeder fund partner. 

  • YA Global made loans and convertible loans and entered into standby equity distribution agreements (“SEDAs”) to purchase equity.  It entered into hundreds of these transactions over the years in question.  YA Global described itself as providing underwriting services, its manager received structuring fees and banker’s fees, and YA Global itself received commitment fees.  The Tax Court held that YA Global provided services, and therefore was engaged in a trade or business in the United States for tax purposes.
  • The case provides a reminder that labels matter and taxpayers should not assume that they will be able to assert a substance argument which conflicts with their own form.  For example, the outcome of the case may have been different had YA Global received all of the fee income that was paid to its manager and if the upfront payments had not been labeled as “fees”.  It certainly would have been easier to argue such income was earned for the provision of capital rather than for services if the income actually had been earned by the entity providing the capital and if the income was not called “fees”.  Where it is not possible to adopt a corporate form that is consistent with the intended tax treatment, it also can be helpful for the parties to agree on the tax treatment of the payment and explicitly state that agreed intention in the transaction documents.
  • The IRS argued that YA Global’s manager should be treated as YA Global’s agent merely because it was acting on behalf of YA Global.  However, the court declined to adopt such a broad standard, instead holding that it is the power to provide interim instructions that made the manager YA Global’s agent.  The court found that YA Global had that power based on a provision in its governing documents requiring it to promptly advise its manager of any relevant investment restrictions.  It is doubtful that future courts will follow this very narrow view of agency, and, therefore, funds should not rely on it.  However, funds whose managers have full discretion to invest on their behalf will have a second defense against an assertion that they are engaged in a U.S. trade or business.
  • YA Global held many of its securities for 12-24 months, told its investors that it sought “capital appreciation”, and had returns similar to venture capital funds (some investments doubled in value and a large number experienced losses).  Despite this, the court held that YA Global was a “dealer in securities” for purposes of section 475, and that its portfolio companies were “customers”.  Again, YA Global’s characterization of its own business to these portfolio companies as being a low-risk spread business likely worked against it.

In 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act was enacted into U.S. federal law as part of a multinational effort to rein in the use of entities to mask illegal activity, including proposed rules (effective January 1, 2024) requiring certain types of entities to file a report identifying the entity’s beneficial owners

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

Introduction

On May 3, 2023, the United States Tax Court held in ES NPA Holding, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-55, that the taxpayer’s receipt of interests in a partnership in exchange for services rendered to the sole owner of the business before it became a partnership was for the benefit of the future partnership and, therefore, was a profits interest (rather than a capital interest). The taxpayer did not provide ongoing services to the partnership.

Tax-exempt organizations, while not generally subject to tax, are subject to tax on their “unrelated business taxable income” (“UBTI”).  One category of UBTI is debt-financed income; that is, a tax-exempt organization that borrows money directly or through a partnership and uses that money to make an investment is generally subject

On August 16, 2022 President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”) into law.

The IRA  includes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax, a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks and a two-year extension of the excess business loss limitation rules. The IRA also contains a number

On August 7, the Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”).  The tax provisions in the bill that was passed vary from the bill that was originally released on July 27, 2022 by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in four significant

On July 27, 2022, Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”). The IRA contains only two non-climate and non-energy tax proposals – a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax and a provision significantly narrowing the applicability of preferential

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration released the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget, and the “General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2023 Revenue Proposals,” which is commonly referred to as the “Green Book.”  The Green Book summarizes the Administration’s tax proposals contained in the Budget. The Green Book is