Blog Layout

Tax Tactics August 2015

August 5, 2015

Should you treat a partner as an employee?

In today’s competitive environment, offering employees an equity interest in your business can be a powerful tool for attracting, retaining and motivating quality talent. If your business is organized as a partnership, however, there are some tax traps you should avoid.

Once an employee becomes a partner, the IRS takes the position that you can no longer treat him or her as an employee for tax purposes. This has several significant tax implications, however.

Employment taxes

Employees pay half of the Social Security and Medicare taxes on their wages, through withholdings from their paychecks. The employer pays the other half. Partners, on the other hand, are treated as being self-employed — they pay the full amount of “self-employment” taxes through quarterly estimates.

Often, when employees receive partnership interests, the partnership continues to treat them as employees for tax purposes, withholding employment taxes from their wages and paying the employer’s share. The problem with this practice is that, because a partner is responsible for the full amount of employment taxes, the partnership’s payment of a portion of those taxes will likely be treated as a guaranteed payment to the partner. That payment would then be included in income and trigger additional employment taxes. Any employment taxes not paid by the partnership on a partner’s behalf are the partner’s responsibility.

Treating a partner as an employee can also result in overpayment of employment taxes. Suppose your partnership pays half of a partner’s employment taxes and the partner also has other self-employment activities — for example, interests in other partnerships or sole proprietorships. If those activities generate losses, the losses will offset the partner’s earnings from your partnership, reducing or even eliminating self-employment taxes.

Unvested profits interests

Partnerships sometimes grant unvested profits interests to employees or other service providers. Generally, these interests aren’t taxable until they vest. But if certain conditions are met, a safe harbor allows recipients to elect to pay the tax when the interest is granted rather than when it vests. Because profits interests often have low or zero value when granted, the election produces significant tax savings.

One of the conditions is that the partnership treat the recipient as the owner of the partnership interest for tax purposes from the grant date forward. But if you continue to treat recipients as employees for employment tax purposes, you’ll likely disqualify them from the safe harbor.

Employee benefits

Partners and employees are treated differently for purposes of many benefit plans. For example, employees are entitled to exclude the value of certain employer-provided health, welfare and fringe benefits from income, while partners must include the value in their income (although they may be entitled to a self-employed health insurance deduction). And partners are prohibited from participating in a cafeteria plan.

Moreover, continuing to treat a partner as an employee for benefits purposes may trigger unwanted tax consequences or even disqualify a cafeteria plan.

Plan carefully

If your business is contemplating offering partnership interests to your employees, consider the tax implications and potential impact on your benefit plans. Also, consider techniques that allow you to continue treating partners as employees for employment tax purposes. For example, you might create a tiered partnership structure and offer employees of a lower-tier partnership interests in an upper-tier partnership. Because employees aren’t partners in the partnership that employs them, many of the problems discussed above will be avoided.

This material is generic in nature. Before relying on the material in any important matter, users should note date of publication and carefully evaluate its accuracy, currency, completeness, and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances.

Share Post:

By Katrina Arona February 19, 2025
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) which took effect on January 1, 2024 required "reporting companies" in the United States to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In May 2024, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution in passing the CTA. Background: December 3, 2024 in the Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court (Eastern District of Texas/Sherman Division) issued a preliminary nationwide injunction barring the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). December 23, 2024 the Nationwide Injunction is lifted and filing deadlines are reinstated. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of Treasury (FinCEN) may again enforce the CTA. FinCEN has not extended any filing deadlines. Therefore, all reporting companies should file immediately any beneficial ownership information reports (BOIRs) that were already due, and reporting companies formed prior to 2024 should file their BOIRs by January 13, 2025 (extended from January 1, 2025). December 27, 2024 the federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated a nationwide injuction halting enforcement of beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements, reversing an order the same court issued earlier this week. FinCEN issued an updated alert on its BOI information page , saying that companies can voluntarily submit BOI reports. February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves. Current Status: February 18, 2025 A federal court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction stopping BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN which enforces BOI requirements under the CTA said it would extend filing deadline for initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI reports to March 21. However, reporting companies that were previously given a deadline later than March 21 may file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. Resources for consideration: March 21 BOI reporting deadline set; further delay possible BOI Injunction Lifted FinCEN BOI Center
By Katrina Arona February 12, 2025
February 7, 2025 FinCEN will consider changes to the BOI reporting requirements if a court grants the government's request for a stay of a nationwide injunction in a Texas case, according to a motion filed Wednesday, February 5th. If the stay is granted, FinCEN will extend BOI filing deadlines for 30 days, the government said in its filing in Samantha Smith and Robert Means v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336 (E.D. Texas 1/7/25). BOI reporting is currently voluntary, pending further legal developments. Businesses and stakeholders should stay alert for additional updates as the situation evolves
By Katrina Arona February 10, 2025
Some nonprofit executives try to control as much as they can. But micromanagement isn’t conducive to creating an effective team.
Show More
Share by: