- The IRS released final regulations under Section 752 concerning the allocation of partnership recourse liabilities among partners and rules for related persons.
- The final regulations largely implement the 2013 proposed regulations, with a few modifications, and also include the related partner exception from the IPO II v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 295 (2004) decision.
- The final regulations outline to what extent a partner is treated as bearing an economic risk of loss (EROL) with respect to a recourse liability and how to allocate recourse liabilities in situations where overlapping EROL occurs.
Background on §752
A partner is required to increase or decrease their outside basis in a partnership interest for their share of partnership liabilities. An increase or decrease in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities is considered a contribution or a distribution of cash under §752(a) and (b), respectively.
The 2013 proposed regulations bifurcate partnership liabilities into recourse and nonrecourse liabilities. Defined in §1.752-1(a), recourse liabilities are those for which a partner or related person bears an economic risk of loss (EROL) under §1.752-2(a). Conversely, nonrecourse liabilities are defined in the same regulation as those for which no partner or related person bears an EROL.
In general, a partner is determined to have an EROL with respect to a partnership liability under the provisions of §1.752-2 if that partner:
- Has a payment obligation with respect to the liability
- Is a lender to the partnership
- Guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability
- Pledges property as security for a partnership liability
Modifications to the 2013 Proposed Regulations Adopted in the Final Regulations
While the final regulations largely adopt the 2013 proposed regulations, additional guidance and modifications were made around a few key areas:
Overlapping Risk of Loss
As previously stated, under §1.752-2(a), recourse liabilities are allocated among partners based on the partners’ EROL. The 2013 proposed regulations provided for a proportionality rule to determine how to allocate recourse liabilities in the event of overlapping EROL between multiple partners. The final regulations retain the proportionality rule and clarify that all statutory and contractual obligations are to be considered when allocating the partnership recourse liability. The final regulations provide an illustrative example of the proportionality rule in §1.752-2(f)(9).
Application to Tiered Partnership Structures
Under the 2013 proposed regulations, an upper-tier partnership (UTP) that is a partner in a lower-tier partnership (LTP) must allocate recourse liabilities directly to the UTP if that UTP, as a partner, bears an EROL with respect to a recourse liability of an LTP. Section 1.752-2(i) contains further guidance for allocating liabilities of a LTP to a UTP.
General EROL Issues
The final regulations correct an oversight in the 2013 proposed regulations by providing a list of all situations in which a partner would directly bear an EROL with respect to a recourse partnership liability while also considering the de minimis exception found in §1.752-2(d).
In addition, the final regulations provide a necessary ordering rule to clarify how the proportionality rule interacts with the multiple partner rule and the related partner exception. A partner that directly bears the EROL for a partnership liability must apply the related partner exception followed by the multiple partner rule, and finally the proportionality rule. The final regulations provide an example of the interaction between these rules in §1.752-4(e).
Related Party Rules
Under the 2013 proposed regulations, in determining whether a party was related to a partner, the constructive ownership rules of §267(c) were required to be considered with certain exceptions. The final regulations added additional exceptions under which constructive ownership should be disregarded for purposes of determining whether a partner and another party have a relationship, ruling that a partner should not be treated as bearing an EROL with respect to a partnership liability when such partner’s risk is limited to their equity investment in a partnership.
Further, in keeping with the decision in IPO II v. Commissioner, the related partner exception was disregarded, instead allocating the partnership liability to the partner that directly bore the EROL, despite a non-partner related person also bearing an EROL.
How Forvis Mazars Can Help
The final regulations apply to any liability incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after the effective date of December 2, 2024, subject to two exceptions for a refinancing provision and binding contract provision.
Partnerships may also choose to apply the final regulations to all liabilities of the partnership, regardless of the date on which they were incurred or assumed, provided the partnership consistently applies all rules in the final regulations to those liabilities. Please reach out to a professional at Forvis Mazars to discuss how the final regulations under §752 may impact your basis in a partnership interest.