United States: Foreign Partner Not Subject To U.S. Tax On Gain From Redemption Of U.S. Partnership Interest

Last Updated: August 30 2017
Article by Neha Rastogi and Nina Krauthamer

In Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., S.A. v. Commr.,1 the U.S. Tax Court recently held that a foreign partner was not subject to U.S. Federal tax when it redeemed its interest in a U.S. partnership and that the capital gain realized was not "U.S.-source income" and not "effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business" (discussed in detail below). In so holding, the Tax Court rejected the I.R.S. analysis in Revenue Ruling 91-32.2

This case represents a significant victory for the taxpayer. In addition to rejecting the I.R.S.'s "aggregate" approach to the taxation of a disposition of partnership interests by foreign partners, it arguably bolsters the Tax Court's holding in Pierre v. Commr.,3 a case in which it determined that a transfer of interests in a limited liability company ("L.L.C.") that was a disregarded entity for U.S. Federal tax purposes was a transfer of the interests in the entity, and not a transfer of the entity's underlying assets, for U.S. Federal gift tax purposes.


Grecian Magnesite Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., S.A. ("Grecian") was a foreign corporation in the business of extracting, producing, and selling magnesite. Grecian directly owned an interest in Premier Chemicals L.L.C. ("Premier"), a Delaware L.L.C. in the business of extracting, producing, and selling magnesite in the U.S. For U.S. Federal tax purposes, Premier was treated as a partnership. Other than through its ownership of Premier, Grecian had no office, employees, nor business operations in the U.S.

Grecian entered into an agreement to redeem its entire interest, of 12.6%, in Premier for $10.6 million in cash. The redemption was effectuated in two payments in which Grecian realized total gain of $6.2 million. The parties agreed that $2.2 million of the realized gain was attributable to Premier's U.S. real property.

Though initially Grecian took the position that the full $6.2 million of gain was not U.S.-source income – and thus not subject to U.S. Federal income tax – it later conceded that the $2.2 million of gain attributable to the U.S. real property was subject to income tax under Internal Revenue Code ("Code") §897(g) (discussed in detail below) and filed a U.S. Federal corporate income tax return to report and pay the tax. The dispute that reached the Tax Court was whether the remaining $4 million was U.S.-source income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S.

Foreign persons, including foreign corporations such as Grecian, generally are subject to U.S. Federal income tax on "U.S.-source income," which generally consists of two broad categories of income:

  • Investment income such as dividends, interest, rents, and royalties, which is referred to as fixed or determinable annual or periodic ("F.D.A.P.") income
  • Income that is effectively connected with a trade or business in the U.S.

In the case at hand, the I.R.S. did not assert that the disputed gain was F.D.A.P. income. Premier was an operating company, thus most of its income likely was from the active operation of its mining business and not investment income. Accordingly, the court stated it would only consider whether the disputed gain was income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.


The court noted that the rules of partnership taxation (found in Subchapter K of the Code) at times treat partnerships as an aggregate of partners and under other circumstances treat partnerships as entities in their own right. An example of the aggregate approach is when a partner determines its distributive share of the partnership's taxable income or loss. In this context, the partnership as an entity with a distinct legal existence is ignored. Instead, it is considered an aggregation of partners, with each partner reporting its distributive share of the partnership's taxable income or loss.

In the context of a redemption of a partnership interest, the court determined that the entity approach (with some exceptions discussed below) must be followed. The court's analysis was as follows:

  • Code §736(b)(1) provides the general rule for liquidating payments made to a partner in redemption of its partnership interest, and states that such liquidating payments be considered as a distribution by the partnership.
  • Code §731 governs the taxation of distributions by a partnership to a partner, and states that in such case "any gain or loss recognized under this subsection shall be considered as gain or loss from the sale or exchange of the partnership interest of the distributee partner (emphasis added)."
  • Code §741 provides the general rule for sales or exchanges of a partnership interest, and states that gain or loss must be recognized by the transferor partner, and that such gain or loss will be considered as gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset.

The court noted that under the above analysis, the partnership is conceived of as an entity distinct from its partners, and a partner pays tax on a sale of its partnership interest "in a manner broadly similar to the manner in which it might pay tax on the sale of an interest in a corporation." It rejected the aggregate approach argument asserted by the I.R.S., which would have required treating the partner's redemption of a partnership interest as the partner's deemed sale of separate interests in each asset owned by the partnership.

The court acknowledged that Congress explicitly carved out exceptions to Code §741 and that, when such an exception applies, the aggregation approach is required so that the sale of the partnership interest may be treated (at least in part) as a sale of the partnership's underlying assets. By its own terms, Code §741 acknowledges one such exception because it is a general rule that applies "except as otherwise provided in Code § 751," which applies when a partnership's underlying assets include unrealized receivables or inventory items (so-called hot assets).

Code §751(a) recharacterizes gain from a sale or exchange of a partnership interest attributable to the partnership's hot assets as ordinary income rather than capital gain. Code §751(b) provides for recharacterization of distributions (including liquidating distributions) from a partnership to a partner to the extent the partner receives a disproportionate share of hot assets, or other partnership property for the partner's share of the partnership's hot assets. The court specifically stated that since the I.R.S. did not assert that Code §751(b) was applicable, it would not consider it. Nonetheless, footnote 16 of the opinion suggests that, Code §751(b), might be an exception to Code §741 in appropriate circumstances, in the same manner as Code §897(g). It is much less clear that Code §751(a) can be read the same way.

Code §897(g) states that the amount realized by a foreign person, such as a foreign corporation, in exchange for a partnership interest, to the extent attributable to U.S. real property, will be considered as an amount received from the sale or exchange of in the U.S. of such property. Thus, under Code §897(g), the amount realized by Grecian attributable to Premier's U.S. real property was U.S.-source income that was effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business, and thus, subject to U.S. Federal income tax.

In the end, the court stated that if the I.R.S.'s aggregation approach was correct, the exceptions to Code §741 in Code §§751 and 897(g) would be superfluous.


After it established that the disputed gain constituted income from the sale of personal property in the form of an indivisible capital asset, the court turned to the question of whether that gain was subject to tax under the rules governing international transactions (found in Subchapter N of the Code).

The Tax Court declined to defer to the I.R.S.'s holding in Revenue Ruling 91-32, which determined that gains realized by foreign partners on the dispositions of interests in U.S. partnerships should be analyzed asset by asset and that, to the extent that the assets of the partnerships would give rise to effectively connected income ("E.C.I.") if sold by the partnerships, the departing partners' pro rata shares of such gains should be treated as E.C.I. The court stated that the ruling was incorrect because it essentially imposed a Code §751-type analysis for all partnership assets that generate E.C.I. and such an exception is not supported by the Code.

The court began its analysis with Code §882, which states that a foreign corporation engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. is taxable on taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the U.S.4

Under Code §875(1), Premier's U.S. trade or business was attributable to Grecian because a foreign corporation is considered engaged in a U.S. trade or business if the partnership of which such corporation is a partner is so engaged.

Since Grecian was engaged in a U.S. trade or business by virtue of its Premier partnership interest, the next question was whether the gain from the redemption of the partnership interest was income effectively connected with the conduct of Premier's U.S. trade or business, which, as discussed above, was mining for magnesite.

E.C.I. is defined under the rules of in Code § 864(c). Code §864(c)(3) states that if a foreign partner is engaged in a U.S. trade or business, all income gain or loss from sources within the U.S. (other than F.D.A.P. income) is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. As previously discussed, the I.R.S. did not assert that the disputed gain was F.D.A.P. income. Thus, if the disputed gain was U.S.-source income, then Code §864(c)(3) would treat it as effectively connected with Premier's U.S. trade or business. Accordingly, the next question addressed by the court was whether the disputed gain was U.S.-source income.

Code §§861 to 863 and 865 provide the income sourcing rules. The court noted that there is no Code provision that governs the source of a foreign partner's income from a sale or liquidation of its interest in a partnership. However, the general rule for gain realized from the sale of personal property, such as Grecian's partnership interest, is found in Code §865(a). Under that section, if the amount is realized by a nonresident, such as a foreign corporation, the gain is sourced outside the U.S. and, thus, is not U.S.-source income. Under this analysis, unless an exception to Code §865(a) applied, the source of the disputed gain would be non-U.S. and, thus, not subject to U.S. Federal income tax in the hands of Grecian.

The I.R.S. argued that an exception to Code §865(a), referred to in the decision as the "U.S. office rule" exception, applied. The court proceeded to analyze – and dismantle – the I.R.S. argument.

The U.S. office rule exception for nonresidents is found in Code §865(e)(2)(A), and generally states:

If a nonresident maintains an office or other fixed place of business in the United States, then the income from a sale of personal property attributable to such office or other fixed place of business shall be sourced in the United States.

The sales income will be attributable to the U.S. office or fixed place of business, if the U.S. office

  • is a material factor in the production of such income, and
  • regularly carries on activities of the type from which such income, gain, or loss is derived.5

Further, the regulations state that "regularly carries on" means realized in the ordinary course.6

The I.R.S. argued (and the court assumed) that Premier's U.S. office is deemed to be Grecian's U.S. office. In trying to show that the disputed gain was attributable to Premier's U.S. office, the I.R.S. argued that Premier's U.S. office was material to the deemed sale of Grecian's portion of the partnership's assets and material to the increased value of Grecian's partnership interest during Grecian's tenure as partner. The court dismissed the first argument because it hinged on the aggregation approach, which it already had determined was not the correct analysis. As to the second argument, the court stated that the I.R.S. was conflating the ongoing value of a business with gain from the sale of an interest in that business. That is, the disputed gain was not realized from Premier's mining business (i.e., activities at the partnership level) but rather at the partner level, from the distinct sale of Grecian's partnership interest. Further, the regulations state that adding substantial value to intangible property (in this case, the going concern value of Premier) is not a material factor.7 Finally, since Premier's business was mining, and not buying and selling partnership interests, the redemption was not in the ordinary course but rather an extraordinary event.

In summary, the court determined that since the disputed gain was not attributable to a U.S. office or other fixed place of business, it was not U.S.-source income. Consequently, the disputed gain was not E.C.I. and, therefore, not taxable in the U.S.


In Pierre, the taxpayer, Suzanne Pierre, had $10 million in cash that she wanted to use to provide for her son and granddaughter. She entered into a plan under which she formed Pierre L.L.C., a single member limited liability company ("S.M.L.L.C.") validly formed under New York law and disregarded for Federal tax purposes under the Treasury entity classification regulations (the "Regulations"). She then created two trusts, one for her son and one for her granddaughter. Approximately two months later, she transferred cash and securities worth $4.25 million to Pierre L.L.C. Shortly after funding Pierre L.L.C. with the cash and securities, she transferred the entire interest in Pierre L.L.C. to the trusts as follows: (i) a gift transfer of a 9.5% membership interest to each trust (to use a portion of her available gift tax-related credit/exemption amounts) and (ii) a sale to each trust of a 40.5% membership interest in exchange for a secured note. The notes each had a face amount of $1.092 million, which was determined by valuing a 1% non-managing interest valued at $26,965, after applying a 36.55% discount. Pierre filed a gift tax return to report each gift of a 9.5% interest in Pierre L.L.C.

The I.R.S. argued that the transfers of the Pierre L.L.C. interests to the trusts were actually transfers of the proportionate shares of the underlying assets of Pierre L.L.C. because the entity was disregarded for Federal tax purposes under the Regulations. If the transfers were treated as transfers of the proportionate shares of Pierre L.L.C.'s underlying assets, a gift tax underpayment would arise because the discount applied to the transfers of the Pierre L.L.C. interests would not apply.

The Tax Court disagreed with the I.R.S. and determined that the transfers were transfers of interests in Pierre L.L.C. It stated that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state law creates property rights and Federal tax law then defines the tax treatment of those property rights. In this case, New York law created no property rights in the underlying assets of Pierre L.L.C. because it recognized the entity as separate and apart from its owners.

The court stated that the Regulations do not disturb this long-established manner of (i) determining the nature of the gift (i.e., the property interest) under state law, (ii) determining the arm's length value of the gift, and (iii) then calculating the gift tax under the Federal gift tax provisions. The Regulations determine whether an S.M.L.L.C. should be taxed as a separate entity or disregarded so that tax on its operations is borne by its owner.

Pierre is similar to Grecian in that the Tax Court respected the transfer of an interest in an L.L.C. as a transfer of an interest in the entity, rather than a transfer of the L.L.C.'s underlying assets. The court in Grecian followed the logic of Subchapter K to determine that the aggregation approach should not apply to characterize a redemption of an L.L.C. interest as a deemed sale of the L.L.C.'s underlying assets. The court in Pierre arguably went further because it found that an S.M.L.L.C., disregarded for Federal tax purposes, should be respected as an entity for the purpose of valuing a transfer of an interest in an S.M.L.L.C. for Federal gift tax purposes.


The Grecian case is an exciting judicial precedent, arising at the intersection of two highly complex areas of the U.S. tax law: partnership taxation and taxation of international transactions. The case offers the Tax Court's step-by-step analysis of the application of and interplay between those sets of rules. Importantly, it is a pro-taxpayer determination of an issue previously interpreted under an I.R.S. ruling that was unfavorable to a foreign partner disposing of an interest in a U.S. partnership. It remains to be seen whether the I.R.S. will appeal the case or whether it will continue to litigate the issue on similar or alternative grounds.


1 149 T.C. 3 (2017).

2 1991-1 C.B.107.

3 133 T.C. 24 (2009).

4 Under Code §881, a foreign corporation may also be taxable on U.S.-source F.D.A.P. income. However, as discussed above, the I.R.S. did not assert that F.D.A.P. income was present in this case, so the analysis was confined to Code §882.

5 Code §864(c)(5)(B). (Under §865(e)(3), the U.S. office rule exception must be determined under the principles of Code §864(c)(5).)

6 Treas. Reg. §1.864-6(b).

7 Treas. Reg. §1.864-6(b)(2)(i).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions