In prior posts, we have considered the “plight” of minority shareholders in various contexts. We have reviewed their inability to influence corporate decisions, to compel a dividend distribution or a redemption of their shares.
In spite of these shareholders’ non-controlling status, we have seen situations in which the taxing authorities have, nonetheless, held them
A recent decision touched upon a theme that has been considered in several of our blogs: the “substance over form” doctrine, under which the legal form of a transaction – that would otherwise result in a beneficial tax result for a taxpayer – will be disregarded in order to give effect to its “true”
A Common Fact Pattern
Partner One and Partner Two started LLC in 2002. LLC was treated as a partnership for tax purposes. They contributed a good deal of their savings and labor, but LLC lost money for the first several years of operation. Another partner, deep-pocketed Corporation, was willing to contribute almost one million dollars
For the owner of a closely-held business, and especially one with a limited support staff, it can be easy to drift into carelessness or, worse, neglect, when it comes to maintaining detailed records of the business’s expenses. However, as one taxpayer recently learned the hard way, such inattention to detail can come back to haunt
In our last post, we indicated that the business owner’s guiding principles in evaluating any transaction in which he or she may engage with the business should be the following:
– Would an unrelated third party have entered the transaction on comparable terms?
– Is the taxpayer’s behavior consistent with what one would expect
With this post, we continue to examine transactions between the closely-held business and its owners. As we saw last week, special scrutiny is given in situations where a business is controlled by the individual with whom it engages in a transaction because there is a lack of arm’s-length bargaining. That is certainly the case
Transactions between a closely held business and its owners will generally be subject to heightened scrutiny by a taxing authority, and the labels attached to such transactions by the parties have limited significance unless they are supported by objective evidence. Thus, arrangements that purport to provide for the payment of compensation, dividends, rent, interest, etc.,
Many of us have encountered variations of the following scenario: a parent owns and operates a business; his kids are employed in the business; as the kids mature and become more comfortable and established in the business, some of them may want to assume greater managerial responsibility and to have a greater voice in the
We all know a story like Bill’s: Bill is a New Yorker that has built a successful business and has attained a level of financial security. His kids are grown, and have moved to the West Coast.
Bill decides that it is time to enjoy the fruits of his labor, preferably in a warmer climate.
Taxpayers sometimes employ a so-called “defined value clause” (“DVC”) in connection with a gift of property that is difficult to value, such as an equity interest in a closely-held business. In the case of such a gift, the value of the business interest – the amount of the gift – is never really “established” for