|
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This
revenue procedure specifies the conditions under which the
Internal Revenue Service will consider a request for a ruling
that an undivided fractional interest in rental real property
(other than a mineral property as defined in section 614)
is not an interest in a business entity, within the meaning
of 301.7701-2(a) of the Procedure and Administration Regulations.
This revenue procedure supersedes Rev. Proc. 2000-46, 2002-2
C.B. 438, which provides that the Service will not issue
advance rulings or determination letters on the questions
of whether an undivided fractional interest in real property
is an interest in an entity that is not eligible for tax-free
exchange under 1031(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code and
whether arrangements where taxpayers acquire undivided fractional
interests in real property constitute separate entities
for federal tax purposes under 7701. This revenue procedure
also modifies Rev. Proc. 2002-3, 2002-1 I.R.B. 117, by removing
these issues from the list of subjects on which the Service
will not rule. Requests for advance rulings described in
Rev. Proc. 2000-46 that are not covered by this revenue
procedure, such as rulings concerning mineral property,
will be considered under procedures set forth in Rev. Proc.
2002-1, 2002-1 I.R.B. 1 (or its successor).
SECTION
2. BACKGROUND
Section 301.7701-1(a)(1) provides that whether an organization
is an entity separate from its owners for federal tax purposes
is a matter of federal law and does not depend on whether
the entity is recognized as an entity under local law. Section
301.7701-1(a)(2) provides that a joint venture or other
contractual arrangement may create a separate entity for
federal tax purposes if the participants carry on a trade,
business, financial operation, or venture and divide the
profits therefrom, but the mere co-ownership of property
that is maintained, kept in repair, and rented or leased
does not constitute a separate entity for federal tax purposes.
Section 301.7701-2(a) provides that a business entity is
any entity recognized for federal tax purposes (including
an entity with a single owner that may be disregarded as
an entity separate from its owner under 301.7701-3) that
is not properly classified as a trust under 301.7701-4 or
otherwise subject to special treatment under the Internal
Revenue Code. A business entity with two or more members
is classified for federal tax purposes as either a corporation
or a partnership.
Section 761(a) provides that the term "partnership"
includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other
unincorporated organization through or by means of which
any business, financial operation, or venture is carried
on, and that is not a corporation or a trust or estate.
Section
1.761-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that the
term "partnership" means a partnership as determined
under 301.7701-1, 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3.
The central characteristic of a tenancy in common, one of
the traditional concurrent estates in land, is that each
owner is deemed to own individually a physically undivided
part of the entire parcel of property. Each tenant in common
is entitled to share with the other tenants the possession
of the whole parcel and has the associated rights to a proportionate
share of rents or profits from the property, to transfer
the interest, and to demand a partition of the property.
These rights generally provide a tenant in common the benefits
of ownership of the property within the constraint that
no rights may be exercised to the detriment of the other
tenants in common. 7 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property
50.01-50.07 (Michael Allan Wolf ed., 2000).
Rev. Rul. 75-374, 1975-2 C.B. 261, concludes that a two-person
co-ownership of an apartment building that was rented to
tenants did not constitute a partnership for federal tax
purposes. In the revenue ruling, the co-owners employed
an agent to manage the apartments on their behalf; the agent
collected rents, paid property taxes, insurance premiums,
repair and maintenance expenses, and provided the tenants
with customary services, such as heat, air conditioning,
trash removal, unattended parking, and maintenance of public
areas. The ruling concludes that the agent's activities
in providing customary services to the tenants, although
imputed to the co-owners, were not sufficiently extensive
to cause the co-ownership to be characterized as a partnership.
See also Rev. Rul. 79-77, 1979-1 C.B. 448, which did not
find a business entity where three individuals transferred
ownership of a commercial building subject to a net lease
to a trust with the three individuals as beneficiaries.
Where a sponsor packages co-ownership interests for sale
by acquiring property, negotiating a master lease on the
property, and arranging for financing, the courts have looked
at the relationships not only among the co-owners, but also
between the sponsor (or persons related to the sponsor)
and the co-owners in determining whether the co-ownership
gives rise to a partnership. For example, in Bergford v.
Commissioner, 12 F.3d 166 (9th Cir. 1993), seventy-eight
investors purchased "co-ownership" interests in
computer equipment that was subject to a 7-year net lease.
As part of the purchase, the co-owners authorized the manager
to arrange financing and refinancing, purchase and lease
the equipment, collect rents and apply those rents to the
notes used to finance the equipment, prepare statements,
and advance funds to participants on an interest-free basis
to meet cash flow. The agreement allowed the co-owners to
decide by majority vote whether to sell or lease the equipment
at the end of the lease. Absent a majority vote, the manager
could make that decision. In addition, the manager was entitled
to a remarketing fee of 10 percent of the equipment's selling
price or lease rental whether or not a co-owner terminated
the agreement or the manager performed any remarketing.
A co-owner could assign an interest in the co-ownership
only after fulfilling numerous conditions and obtaining
the manager's consent.
- NEXT PAGE
|