|
#4
| |||
| |||
| "Lanny Williams, CPA" <lanny[at]expatriatetax.net> wrote: - quote - > Aren't limited partners protected against negative account
Normally, yes. But that can be changed by the partnership> balances. I've always thought that limited partners can > never be liable for more than the capital contribution > required by the partnership agreement. Thus, in this case, > assuming all partners made their full, required capital > contributions, the limited partners do not have to make up > their deficits. agreement. Stu << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| pgattocpa[at]excite.com wrote: - quote - > Thomas Healy wrote:
balances. I've always thought that limited partners can> > "verleye[at]msn.com" <verleye[at]msn.com> wrote: > > > I picked up a new client (Obvioulsy Short Term) that is a > > > L.P. and is filing a final 1065 as of 12/31/04. The only > > > assets in the partnership are Organizational Costs of $1,000 > > > and accumulated amortization of $250.00. There was no > > > activity in 2004. > > > > > Here is my issue. I noticed that when I marked the > > > termination of the asset and it allocated the loss to the > > > partners, the current year loss was allocated based on their > > > P/l percentages. This is not a problem, except that the > > > partners capital accounts do not agree with their > > > partnership percentages. Thus the current year applied loss > > > is leaving a capital account balance for the 1% general > > > partner and a negative capital account balance for the other > > > two 49.5% limited partners? Does this mean that that general > > > partner will show a capital loss and the limited partners a > > > capital gain? I should add, there was no cash or anything > > > else for that matter involved in the liquidation. > > > > > In looking back through the prior returns, it appears that > > > the contributions to the partnership were not in accordance > > > with the partnership percentages. > > > > > I do not have a lot of liquidation experience, so any advice > > > would be greatly appreciated and also any source of > > > learning/study that you could recommed in this area would > > > help. > > The clue is the uneven contributions. Unless the partners > > just want to liquidate and move on, the partners in a > > deficit capital account position should contribute funds to > > bring their accounts to zero. Otherwise, your assumption is > > correct: capital gain for the deficit accounts and capital > > loss for the positive accounts. > It's hard to say that the partners with a deficit capital > account *should* restore their deficit accounts without > reading the p'ship agreement. There are many agreements > that specifically state that partners are not required to > restore deficits. Kind of an "anti-DRO" clause. > Additionally, many p'ship agreements state that profits & > losses are to be allocated in such a manner that the ending > capital account balances are to equal what they would be if > the p'ship immediately liquidated. This *could* mean that > despite the *uneven* balances the accounts have now, that if > they should have been 1% 49.5% / 49.5%, then the $750 > current year loss should be allocated in such a manner as to > get as close aas possible to that result. > However, as Tom pragmatically points out, if the partners > don't care they can move on by restoring the deficits. They > can probably also move on without restoration. That's the > beauty of small numbers. Add two or four zeroes to the > equation and then you better have that p'ship agreement in > hand. <G Aren't limited partners protected against negative account never be liable for more than the capital contribution required by the partnership agreement. Thus, in this case, assuming all partners made their full, required capital contributions, the limited partners do not have to make up their deficits. Lanny K. Williams, CPA Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd. Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Thomas Healy wrote: - quote - > "verleye[at]msn.com" <verleye[at]msn.com> wrote:
It's hard to say that the partners with a deficit capital> > I picked up a new client (Obvioulsy Short Term) that is a > > L.P. and is filing a final 1065 as of 12/31/04. The only > > assets in the partnership are Organizational Costs of $1,000 > > and accumulated amortization of $250.00. There was no > > activity in 2004. > > > Here is my issue. I noticed that when I marked the > > termination of the asset and it allocated the loss to the > > partners, the current year loss was allocated based on their > > P/l percentages. This is not a problem, except that the > > partners capital accounts do not agree with their > > partnership percentages. Thus the current year applied loss > > is leaving a capital account balance for the 1% general > > partner and a negative capital account balance for the other > > two 49.5% limited partners? Does this mean that that general > > partner will show a capital loss and the limited partners a > > capital gain? I should add, there was no cash or anything > > else for that matter involved in the liquidation. > > > In looking back through the prior returns, it appears that > > the contributions to the partnership were not in accordance > > with the partnership percentages. > > > I do not have a lot of liquidation experience, so any advice > > would be greatly appreciated and also any source of > > learning/study that you could recommed in this area would > > help. > The clue is the uneven contributions. Unless the partners > just want to liquidate and move on, the partners in a > deficit capital account position should contribute funds to > bring their accounts to zero. Otherwise, your assumption is > correct: capital gain for the deficit accounts and capital > loss for the positive accounts. account *should* restore their deficit accounts without reading the p'ship agreement. There are many agreements that specifically state that partners are not required to restore deficits. Kind of an "anti-DRO" clause. Additionally, many p'ship agreements state that profits & losses are to be allocated in such a manner that the ending capital account balances are to equal what they would be if the p'ship immediately liquidated. This *could* mean that despite the *uneven* balances the accounts have now, that if they should have been 1% 49.5% / 49.5%, then the $750 current year loss should be allocated in such a manner as to get as close aas possible to that result. However, as Tom pragmatically points out, if the partners don't care they can move on by restoring the deficits. They can probably also move on without restoration. That's the beauty of small numbers. Add two or four zeroes to the equation and then you better have that p'ship agreement in hand. <G Regards, Peter C. Gatto, CPA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| "verleye[at]msn.com" <verleye[at]msn.com> wrote: - quote - > I picked up a new client (Obvioulsy Short Term) that is a
The clue is the uneven contributions. Unless the partners> L.P. and is filing a final 1065 as of 12/31/04. The only > assets in the partnership are Organizational Costs of $1,000 > and accumulated amortization of $250.00. There was no > activity in 2004. > Here is my issue. I noticed that when I marked the > termination of the asset and it allocated the loss to the > partners, the current year loss was allocated based on their > P/l percentages. This is not a problem, except that the > partners capital accounts do not agree with their > partnership percentages. Thus the current year applied loss > is leaving a capital account balance for the 1% general > partner and a negative capital account balance for the other > two 49.5% limited partners? Does this mean that that general > partner will show a capital loss and the limited partners a > capital gain? I should add, there was no cash or anything > else for that matter involved in the liquidation. > In looking back through the prior returns, it appears that > the contributions to the partnership were not in accordance > with the partnership percentages. > I do not have a lot of liquidation experience, so any advice > would be greatly appreciated and also any source of > learning/study that you could recommed in this area would > help. just want to liquidate and move on, the partners in a deficit capital account position should contribute funds to bring their accounts to zero. Otherwise, your assumption is correct: capital gain for the deficit accounts and capital loss for the positive accounts. -- Tom Healy, CPA Boulder, CO Web: http://www.tomhealycpa.com << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| | |||
| |||
| verleye[at]msn.com wrote: - quote - > I picked up a new client (Obvioulsy Short Term) that is a
"Partnership percentage" usually refers to the method by> L.P. and is filing a final 1065 as of 12/31/04. The only > assets in the partnership are Organizational Costs of $1,000 > and accumulated amortization of $250.00. There was no > activity in 2004. > Here is my issue. I noticed that when I marked the > termination of the asset and it allocated the loss to the > partners, the current year loss was allocated based on their > P/l percentages. This is not a problem, except that the > partners capital accounts do not agree with their > partnership percentages. Thus the current year applied loss > is leaving a capital account balance for the 1% general > partner and a negative capital account balance for the other > two 49.5% limited partners? Does this mean that that general > partner will show a capital loss and the limited partners a > capital gain? I should add, there was no cash or anything > else for that matter involved in the liquidation. > In looking back through the prior returns, it appears that > the contributions to the partnership were not in accordance > with the partnership percentages. > I do not have a lot of liquidation experience, so any advice > would be greatly appreciated and also any source of > learning/study that you could recommed in this area would > help. which partners share in profits and losses, and may be any ratio they agree upon. For example, in one partnership the husband and wife may be accorded profits 50/50, however losses are allocated in the ratio 100/0. It depends on how the partnership agreement reads. Capital accounts are not necessarily always in the same ratio, and can see why with the scenario above. Partners will deduct any losses according to their bases, anyway. ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| I picked up a new client (Obvioulsy Short Term) that is a L.P. and is filing a final 1065 as of 12/31/04. The only assets in the partnership are Organizational Costs of $1,000 and accumulated amortization of $250.00. There was no activity in 2004. Here is my issue. I noticed that when I marked the termination of the asset and it allocated the loss to the partners, the current year loss was allocated based on their P/l percentages. This is not a problem, except that the partners capital accounts do not agree with their partnership percentages. Thus the current year applied loss is leaving a capital account balance for the 1% general partner and a negative capital account balance for the other two 49.5% limited partners? Does this mean that that general partner will show a capital loss and the limited partners a capital gain? I should add, there was no cash or anything else for that matter involved in the liquidation. In looking back through the prior returns, it appears that the contributions to the partnership were not in accordance with the partnership percentages. I do not have a lot of liquidation experience, so any advice would be greatly appreciated and also any source of learning/study that you could recommed in this area would help. Thanks, Dax << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| Tags |
| liquidation, partnership |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| Dissolution without liquidation? John: A small closely held corporation has no assets other than publicly traded stocks and treasury notes. Can it avoid paying capital gains tax on... | Taxes | 7 | 05-27-2005 04:30 AM | |
| Spousal Partnership Bill Lloyd: A married couple had a business in Canada. They are both long term residents of Canada but she is a US citizen and husband is Canadian. They were... | Taxes | 5 | 02-16-2004 08:48 PM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |