Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions
Post and Distribute
Your Jobs
ARPA Webcasts

Featured Jobs

Director of 401(k) Implementation, Core

Human Interest
(Telecommute / Mill Valley CA)

Human Interest logo

Plan Document Specialist

Jocelyn Pension Consulting
(Telecommute / Boulder CO / San Rafael CA)

Jocelyn Pension Consulting logo

DB Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Employee Benefits/Health and Welfare Attorney

Miller Johnson
(Telecommute / Grand Rapids MI / Kalamazoo MI / Detroit MI)

Miller Johnson logo

Product Support Consultant part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory
(Telecommute) part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

My Benefits, LLC
(Telecommute / Daphne AL / Atlantic Beach FL)

My Benefits, LLC logo

DB/DC Administrator

Primark Benefits
(Telecommute / Burlingame CA)

Primark Benefits logo

401(k) Implementation Manager

Human Interest
(Telecommute / San Francisco CA)

Human Interest logo

Director of Finance

NYCDC of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

DC or DB Administrator

Farmer & Betts, Inc.
(Telecommute / Tacoma WA / Tualatin OR / Littleton CO)

Farmer & Betts, Inc. logo

DC Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Retirement Plan Consultant / Relationship Manager

Associated Pension Consultants
(Chico CA / Sacramento CA)

Associated Pension Consultants logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

RSW & Associates
(CT / NJ / NY)

RSW & Associates logo

Retirement Plan Administrator (Account Manager)

Kushner & Company
(Telecommute / Portage MI)

Kushner & Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company
(Telecommute / Winter Park FL)

Bates & Company logo

401(k) Consultant

TPS Group
(Telecommute / North Haven CT)

TPS Group logo

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile App image LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
Facebook icon

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

Answers are provided by S. Derrin Watson, JD, APM

Common Control in Partnerships

(Posted September 6, 2002)

Question 230: In determining whether two partnerships are a brother-sister group of trades or businesses under common control, do you first consider each owner's profits interests and then consider each owner's capital interests (to see if the ownership threshholds are met) or alternatively, do you use the higher of each partner's capital or profits interest? (The attribution rules clearly state that an interest in an entity owned by a partnership is deemed to be owned by the partner in proportion to the greater of his capital or profits interests. However, I'm not sure how to apply the rules if no attribution rule is called for.)

Answer: Your uncertainty is understandable. The real question is, "What constitutes a controlling interest, or effective control, of a partnership?" As you point out, that is a very different question from "How are assets held by a partnership attributed to its partners?"

The regulations give a clear answer. A controlling interest in a partnership consists of "ownership of at least 80 percent of the profits interest or capital interest of such partnership." In other words, add all the profits interests of the partners under consideration. If that totals 80% or more, they have a controlling interest. If not, add all the capital interests of those partners. If that totals 80% or more, they have a controlling interest. If the partners in question have less than 80% of partnership profits and less than 80% of partnership capital, then they do not have a controlling interest. A similar rule applies for effective control (set at more than 50%.)

Let's take an example. George and Gracie each own 50% of George's Cigars. In addition they are partners in Gracie's Hats. George owns 40% of the capital and 30% of the profits in Gracie's Hats. Gracie owns 35% of the capital and 42% of the profits in Gracie's Hats. Their friend, Allen, owns the remaining interest in the partnership. Together George and Gracie own 75% of the capital and 72% of the profits. Because they do not own 80% of either, they do not have a controlling interest. Barring attribution or exclusion, Gracie's Hats and George's Cigars are not under common control.

Under the alternative you suggested, we would add George's 40% of capital to Gracie's 42% of profits to come to 82%. But that is not what the regulations provide. The regulations don't add numbers; they add profits interests and they separately add capital interests. They do not mix the two.

However, as you point out, attribution is based on the greater of capital or profits interest. So, suppose Gracie's Hats owned 100 shares of Acme Deviled Eggs. George would be deemed to own 40 shares of Acme, and Gracie would be deemed to own 42 shares of Acme.

Groups under common control are discussed in Chapter 12 of my book, Who's the Employer. (The 10% off presale of the upcoming third edition expires September 30.)

Important notice:

Answers are provided as general guidance on the subjects covered in the question and are not provided as legal advice to the questioner or to readers. Any legal issues should be reviewed by your legal counsel to apply the law to the particular facts of this and similar situations.

The law in this area changes frequently. Answers are believed to be correct as of the posting dates shown. The completeness or accuracy of a particular answer may be affected by changes in the law (statutes, regulations, rulings, court decisions, etc.) that occur after the date on which a particular Q&A is posted.

Copyright 1999-2017 S. Derrin Watson
Related links:

(restricted access)

(restricted access)

© 2021, Inc.