Joint venture not operated as bona fide partnership | KPMG | GLOBAL

Ninth Circuit: Joint venture not operated as bona fide partnership

Joint venture not operated as bona fide partnership

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today affirmed decisions of the U.S. Tax Court, and concluded that the Tax Court did not err in finding that there was no intent by the parties that had formed a joint venture to operate it as a bona fide partnership. The Ninth Circuit thus agreed with the Tax Court that the joint venture was not a valid partnership, thereby affecting the allocation of income for income tax purposes.


Related content


The case concerns taxpayers who were owners of an asbestos removal business that had been structured using various holding corporations. 

An opportunity arose to do environmental remediation work for a massive redevelopment project for the U.S. Navy. The contract would require that a large bond be posted against the possibility that the work would not be completed. To afford the bond, a joint venture was formed. 

Under the terms of the joint venture agreement, one company would do the environmental remediation work, and the other party (a partnership whose ultimate owners were tax-exempt retirement plans) would supply financial guaranties. In exchange for these services, the company would receive 30% of the venture’s profits, and the partnership would receive 70%. Accordingly, under the joint venture, the company would pay corporate income tax on its 30% share of the venture’s profits, but the partnership, would pay no income tax on its 70% share. Instead, that income would pass through to its owners, two holding corporations that were S corporations, so that the income would pass through to the S corporations’ shareholders. All shares of the holding corporations were in turn owned by tax-exempt retirement savings plans. 

The IRS determined income tax deficiencies, which the Tax Court upheld. Today, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The case is: DJB Holding Corp. v. Commissioner, No. 12-70574 (9th Cir. October 7, 2015). Read text of the Ninth Circuit’s decision [PDF 183 KB]

© 2017 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Connect with us


Request for proposal