Immediate FLP Gifting: Legitimate Estate Planning or Transfer Tax Avoidance?

Very High

—

🏢 Client

I'm setting up a family limited partnership to hold a portfolio of commercial real estate — about eight properties, mix of retail and office, fair market value around $40 million with about $15 million in debt. My wife and I will be the general partners with a 2% interest, and we're gifting 98% limited partnership interests to our three kids, split equally. The properties generate strong cash flo…

🔒

Create a free account to keep reading.

It takes 10 seconds.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

Free accounts get unlimited access to all conversations.

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first.

Case Summary ▾

Complexity ⓘ Very High

Fact Pattern Taxpayer formed FLP to hold eight commercial properties ($40M FMV, $15M debt, $3M annual NOI), contributed all assets individually, retained 2% GP interest with full management control, and gifted 98% LP interests to three children within same month as formation and funding, claiming 30% combined valuation discount.

Position Taken Taxpayer may proceed with FLP formation and immediate gifting provided partnership is operated with complete legal formalities (separate accounts, entity-level lease execution, documented distributions, formal minutes) and supported by qualified appraisal demonstrating legitimate business purpose of centralizing management of multi-property commercial portfolio. Conservative 30% discount defensible where appraiser documents entity-level operational complexity and applies standard methodology for lack of marketability (20-35%) and lack of control (5-15%) in cash-flowing real estate partnerships. Key supporting authorities: legitimate business purpose accepted for centralizing management of income-producing property and facilitating succession planning even where senior generation contributes all assets and retains control, provided entity has legal and economic significance through proper operation and separate legal identity.

IRS Challenge Section 2036(a)(2) inclusion argument based on compressed timeline between formation, funding, and gifting demonstrating partnership formed predominantly for transfer tax avoidance rather than legitimate business purpose, with no meaningful change in asset management or business operations. Government will argue partnership is testamentary substitute, seek full estate inclusion of $40M assets at death, disallow $11.76M in claimed valuation discounts on gift tax returns, assert additional gift tax at 40% plus interest, and potentially pursue Section 6662(a) substantial valuation misstatement penalties absent qualified appraisal and reasonable cause. Examiner cites Estate of Bongard v. Commissioner for proposition that immediate gift following formation where transferor retained management control supports lack of business purpose finding.

Authorities

IRC § 2036(a)(2) IRC § 2704(b) IRC § 6662(a) Treas. Reg. § 25.2703-1(b)(1)(i) Estate of Bongard v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 95 (2005)