Profits Interests and Admitting New LLC Members
Updated: a few seconds ago
Circular 230 / general information notice. This article is general information only. It is not tax, legal, or accounting advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Tax results depend on your facts and on law that can change. Consult your own attorney and CPA before taking any action. This article was not written to be used, and cannot be used, to avoid tax penalties.
Profits interests are the tool many LLCs use when they want to admit a new member for services without handing over a slice of current capital. Done correctly, the grant can be respected as a partnership interest in future appreciation only, and the IRS safe harbors in Rev. Proc. 93-27 and Rev. Proc. 2001-43 can keep the grant and the vesting event from being treated as a taxable transfer. Done carelessly, the interest looks like a capital interest, or the allocations no longer match the deal the members think they made. The rest of this piece covers the safe harbors, the protective Section 83(b) election, book-ups and reverse Section 704(c) layers, capital-account liquidation versus target allocations, and the proposed regulations that still have not replaced the revenue procedures.
What profits interests are, and what they are not
Rev. Proc. 93-27, 1993-2 C.B. 343, defines a capital interest as an interest that would give the holder a share of proceeds if the partnership's assets were sold at fair market value and the proceeds were then distributed in a complete liquidation. A profits interest is a partnership interest other than a capital interest. In plain terms, if the company were sold for its current value on the grant date, the service provider should take home nothing on that hypothetical liquidation. The service provider shares only in value created after the grant, above a hurdle that reflects current equity value.
That definition is why grant-date valuation and the distribution waterfall matter so much. If the hurdle is too low, or if the agreement would still write a check to the new member on a sale at today's value, the interest may be a capital interest, which is usually a taxable event when received for services. The threshold comes from a current equity value that the members, and often an appraiser or the CPA, can defend.
In the documents, the hurdle is a distribution threshold attached to each grant. Sample language:
"Each Class B Unit is issued with a Distribution Threshold equal to the amount that would be distributed with respect to all Units outstanding immediately before issuance if the Company sold all of its assets for their fair market value on the date of issuance, as determined by the Board in good faith, and distributed the net proceeds under Section 5.1. A Class B Unit participates in distributions under Section 5.1 only after aggregate distributions to all other Units following its date of issuance equal its Distribution Threshold. The Board intends each Class B Unit to be a 'profits interest' within the meaning of Rev. Proc. 93-27 and Rev. Proc. 2001-43, and this Agreement will be interpreted consistently with that intent."
What each piece does:
Measuring the threshold by a hypothetical sale and liquidation mirrors the Rev. Proc. 93-27 definition of a capital interest, so the test and the drafting use the same yardstick.
"As determined by the Board in good faith" puts the valuation on a decision-maker. A board resolution supported by a valuation is the record the company wants if the grant is later questioned.
"Following its date of issuance" means each grant carries its own threshold. A later grant at a higher value does not share in appreciation that earlier holders created.
The intent sentence is not a safe harbor by itself, but it gives the CPA and a court an interpretive rule for gaps.
The numbers show how it works. An LLC is worth $8,000,000 on the grant date, and a new member receives Class B Units equal to a 10% profits interest with an $8,000,000 Distribution Threshold. If the company were sold that day, the existing members would receive all $8,000,000 and the new member would receive nothing, which is the zero liquidation value the safe harbor requires. Three years later the company sells for $14,000,000 net. The first $8,000,000 goes to the existing members, and the remaining $6,000,000 is shared 90/10, so the new member receives $600,000 and the existing members receive $13,400,000 in total. If the board had set the threshold at $5,000,000 instead, the new member would have received $300,000 on a day-one sale, and the grant would look like a capital interest.
The revenue procedure's safe harbor applies if a person receives a profits interest for the provision of services to or for the benefit of the partnership, in a partner capacity or in anticipation of being a partner, and if three exclusions do not apply. The interest must not relate to a substantially certain and predictable stream of income from partnership assets, such as income from high-quality debt securities or a high-quality net lease. The partner must not dispose of the interest within two years of receipt. The interest must not be a limited partnership interest in a publicly traded partnership within the meaning of Section 7704(b). If those conditions are met, the IRS will not treat the receipt of the interest as a taxable event for the partner or the partnership.
Unvested grants and Rev. Proc. 2001-43
Many profits interests vest over time or on performance conditions. Rev. Proc. 2001-43, 2001-2 C.B. 191, clarifies that the capital-interest test is applied at the time of grant, even if the interest is substantially nonvested under the Section 83 regulations. If the 2001-43 conditions and Rev. Proc. 93-27 are both met, the IRS will not treat the grant or the later vesting event as a taxable event for the partner or the partnership. The service provider is treated as receiving the interest on the grant date, provided that:
The partnership and the service provider treat the service provider as the owner of the interest from the grant date, and the service provider takes into account the distributive share of partnership items for the entire period the service provider holds the interest.
Neither the partnership nor any partner deducts any amount (as wages, compensation, or otherwise) for the fair market value of the interest on grant or on vesting.
The other conditions of Rev. Proc. 93-27 are satisfied.
That first condition has operating-agreement consequences. The new member should be a partner for tax purposes from the grant date, including K-1 reporting, even while the interest is unvested. Forfeiture provisions, repurchase rights, and what happens to allocations if the interest is forfeited need to be written so they do not contradict that treatment.
Rev. Proc. 2001-43 also states that taxpayers to which it applies need not file an election under Section 83(b). That is true as far as it goes.
Why a protective Section 83(b) election is still common
Section 83(b) allows a service provider to elect, within 30 days of the transfer, to include in income the excess of the fair market value of property received (over the amount paid, if any) at the time of transfer, rather than at vesting. For a true profits interest with zero liquidation value at grant, that inclusion should be zero. The election still does useful work if the interest later fails the safe harbor. If, for example, the holder disposes of the interest within two years, or the interest is later treated as a capital interest, a timely 83(b) election can lock in grant-date value (often zero or close to it) instead of value at vesting, and can start the holding period at grant.
I usually want the grant documents to require a protective 83(b) election, with a copy to the company, and a calendar reminder inside that 30-day window. Since November 2024, the IRS has offered Form 15620 as an optional standard form for the election; a signed statement with the information required by Treas. Reg. § 1.83-2(e) still works. The election is mailed to the IRS office where the taxpayer files, and keeping certified mail proof of the mailing date is the practical way to prove it was timely. Missing the statutory window cannot be fixed by a later agreement among the members. Whether the election is filed is still the service provider's tax decision, made with that person's own advisor. The company's job is to make the requirement clear and to avoid taking a compensation deduction inconsistent with Rev. Proc. 2001-43.
Book-ups and reverse Section 704(c) layers
Admitting a new member for a profits interest almost always calls for a revaluation of partnership property, often called a book-up, under Treas. Reg. § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f) when those rules are used. The point is to update capital accounts so existing members are credited with unrealized gain (or loss) in current assets before the new member shares in later appreciation. Without a book-up, a later sale of already-appreciated property can throw economic gain to the new member that the parties never intended to share.
Treas. Reg. § 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f)(5)(iii) expressly permits a revaluation in connection with the grant of a partnership interest, other than a de minimis interest, as consideration for services. A simple case: the LLC owns a building with a tax basis and book value of $2,000,000 and a fair market value of $5,000,000. On the grant date, the company books the building up to $5,000,000 and credits the $3,000,000 of unrealized gain to the existing members' capital accounts. If the building later sells for exactly $5,000,000, there is $3,000,000 of tax gain and no book gain, and reverse Section 704(c) allocates the full $3,000,000 of tax gain to the existing members. The new member is allocated none of it, which matches the economics.
The book-up creates reverse Section 704(c) layers. Reverse 704(c) allocates the book-tax differences created by a revaluation so that pre-admission appreciation stays with the historic partners. The operating agreement should say that reverse 704(c) allocations will be made, and should choose or allow the partnership to choose a 704(c) method (traditional, traditional with curative allocations, or remedial) in coordination with the CPA.
The broader plumbing is covered in Partnership Tax Issues in LLC Operating Agreements. If the agreement is silent on revaluations, or capital accounts have not been maintained, the CPA cannot build a clean threshold at grant time.
Capital account liquidation versus target allocations
Two drafting styles show up in the allocation section, and they need to be consistent with the profits-interest hurdle.
One style is a capital-account liquidation model. The agreement maintains 704(b) capital accounts, liquidates according to positive capital-account balances, and includes deficit restoration or qualified income offset language as needed so that allocations can have substantial economic effect. In that model, the profits-interest hurdle has to be reflected in the capital accounts and the distribution waterfall. If the agreement liquidates by capital accounts but distributes current cash on a different percentage, the two sections will fight each other.
The other common style is target (or "forced") allocations. The agreement tells the partnership to allocate items so that, as nearly as possible, capital accounts equal what each member would receive if the company sold its assets for book value and liquidated under the distribution waterfall. Target allocations can track a waterfall with a threshold and catch-up more cleanly than layered percentages, but they still require capital-account maintenance and CPA modeling, especially in a year with too little income to reach the targets.
I want the distribution waterfall, the profits-interest grant agreement, and the tax allocation article written as one system. If the grant says the holder has a 10 percent profits interest above a stated threshold, the waterfall should say the same thing in dollars, and the allocations should be capable of producing capital accounts that match that waterfall.
State law: who has to approve the grant
The tax analysis assumes the grant was validly authorized. Under the Texas Business Organizations Code, absent a contrary provision in the company agreement, an LLC may issue membership interests after formation only with the approval of all members, § 101.105, and a new class must be established under § 101.104. Delaware is similar in substance: under 6 Del. C. § 18-301(b), a person is admitted as a member after formation as provided in the LLC agreement or, if the agreement is silent, on the consent of all members. A company that plans to grant profits interests regularly should give the board or manager express authority to create the class, issue units under an incentive plan, and amend the schedule of members without a full member vote.
One more federal point for investment vehicles. Section 1061 requires a holding period of more than three years for long-term capital gain treatment on an "applicable partnership interest," which generally covers interests received for services in a business of raising or returning capital and investing in or developing specified assets. It does not usually reach a profits interest in an ordinary operating company, but a management company, fund general partner, or real estate investment vehicle should check it.
The proposed regulations
In May 2005, the Treasury Department and the IRS published proposed regulations on partnership equity for services (REG-105346-03, 70 Fed. Reg. 29675, May 24, 2005), together with Notice 2005-43. The proposed regulations would coordinate Section 83 more tightly with subchapter K and would allow a liquidation-value safe harbor election. Notice 2005-43 contains a proposed revenue procedure that, if finalized, would obsolete Rev. Proc. 93-27 and Rev. Proc. 2001-43.
Those proposed regulations have not been finalized, and the procedure in Notice 2005-43 has not been issued in final form. Until that happens, taxpayers may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 93-27 and Rev. Proc. 2001-43. If the proposed rules are ever finalized, grant documents will need to be revisited. Do not draft today as if the 2005 package already replaced the revenue procedures.
A practical process for admitting the new member
Confirm the business deal: percentage, hurdle, vesting, forfeiture, voting, and whether the person will be treated as a partner from the grant date.
Have the CPA (and, where appropriate, an appraiser) support current equity value so the hurdle really produces a zero liquidation value at grant.
Amend the operating agreement: book-up on admission, reverse 704(c), allocation method, capital accounts or target allocations that match the waterfall, and tax distributions if the members expect them.
Prepare a grant agreement that recites profits-interest treatment, the Rev. Proc. 93-27 exclusions, the 2001-43 owner-from-grant conditions, and a required protective 83(b) election.
Calendar the 30-day 83(b) window and prohibit a company-level compensation deduction for the value of the interest.
Issue the K-1 and maintain capital accounts from the grant date, including during the vesting period.
Admitting a service member is entity and contract work as much as tax work. I handle the operating agreement and grant documents and work alongside the CPA on capital accounts, the threshold, and allocations. See our business law services.
Want to run your scenario by me? info@robertsandwillie.com or (469) 910-4017. Sending a message does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Disclaimer. This article is for general information only and is not tax, legal, or accounting advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Tax law changes and depends on your specific facts. Do not act on this article without consulting your own attorney and CPA. This article is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or other applicable law. Attorney Advertising. Roberts & Willie, PLLC, Dallas, Texas; Trenton Roberts, responsible attorney.
Comments