Recently, a number of cases have come out addressing when a gift of an LLC interest is really a gift of an underlying asset owned by the LLC. Two of these cases were decided right here in Federal District Court in Washington: Heckerman v. U.S., U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Washington, Cause No. C08-0211-JCC (July 27, 2009) and Linton v. U.S., U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Washington, Cause No. C08-227Z (July 1, 2009).
To summarize the cases very briefly, families in each case formed an LLC and the senior generation contributed various assets to the respective LLCs. On the same day the LLC contributions were made, gifts of LLC interests were made to trusts for their respective children. Each family claimed a valuation discount of the LLC interests for gift tax purposes. The IRS applied the indirect gift and step transaction doctrines to attempt to eliminate the discounts. In effect, the IRS said the parents made a gift of an actual asset and not an LLC interest. Valuation discounts apply to the latter. The IRS was successful in both cases.
The primary basis for denying the valuation discounts was the indirect gift doctrine. Application of this doctrine can frustrate a valuation discount if there is insufficient evidence to conclude what occurred first, funding the LLC or making gifts. In each case, with funding and gifting occurring on the same day, the necessary evidence was absent. An additional basis was the step transaction doctrine where a series of separate ‘steps’ are seen in substance as integrated, interdependent, and focused toward a particular result. There are three different tests used to determine if the step transaction doctrine applies in a given transaction: the “binding commitment test” where there is a binding commitment to undertake several different acts that, when viewed as a whole, are really one transaction; the “end result test” where one gleans an overriding transaction based on achieving an end result, such as tax savings; and the “interdependence test” where one act is ultimately fruitless without additional acts.
Can these problems be addressed with proper planning and drafting? Ultimately, the answer is somewhat unclear. What seems obvious is to set up an LLC or partnership first, then subsequently fund it with the assets desired. Other case law also indicates that when contributing property to the LLC the value of the asset should be attributable to the contributor’s capital account only. At a later point in time, seemingly the more elapsed time the better, a person would make gifts of the LLC interests. Presumably, if you are gifting to a trust, as is often the case, setting up the trust subsequent to the creation and funding of the LLC would seem prudent. Conducting affairs in this manner should automatically avoid the indirect gift doctrine and, assuming proper drafting, the “binding commitment test.” It should also go a long way to avoiding the “interdependence test,” however, given that the “end result test” can be apparently be satisfied by evidence of the “subjective intent” of the parties, it is unclear how one would plan to avoid this part of the step transaction doctrine. Stay tuned for further developments.
