United States: Grecian Magnesite Put To Bed: Tax Court Ruling Affirmed On Appeal

Last Updated: July 11 2019
Article by Galia Antebi and Stanley C. Ruchelman


Recently, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the 2017 Tax Court ruling in the matter of Grecian Magnesite Mining v. Commr.,1 which held that a foreign corporation was not liable for U.S. tax on the gain from a redemption of its membership interest in a U.S. limited liability company ("L.L.C.") treated as a partnership where the L.L.C. was engaged in a U.S. trade or business. Gain attributable to U.S. real property was not at issue in the initial decision or the appeal. In so holding, it affirmed the entity view of partnerships for U.S. tax purposes as it relates to the character of the interest owned by a member.


The I.R.S. has a long history in misapplying U.S. tax rules applicable to a sale of a partnership interest. For U.S. tax purposes, a partnership interest is treated as an asset separate and apart from an indirect interest in partnership assets. In Rev. Rul. 91-32, the I.R.S. misinterpreted case law and Code provisions to conclude that gains derived by foreign investors in U.S. partnerships are subject to tax.2 No one thought the I.R.S. position was correct, but then, in a field advice to an agent setting up an adjustment, the I.R.S. publicly stated that the ruling was a proper application of U.S. law when issued.3

The validity of the I.R.S. position was presented to the Tax Court in Grecian Magnesite, Mining, Industrial & Shipping Co., SA v. Commr., a case that was tried and briefed in 2014. The facts in the case are relatively straightforward. Grecian Magnesite was a privately-owned corporation organized under the laws of Greece. From 2001 through 2008, it was a member of a U.S. L.L.C. that was engaged in the business of extracting, producing, and distributing magnesite. The business operations were carried on in the U.S. In 2008, Grecian Magnesite's interest in the L.L.C. was completely redeemed – a transaction treated as a sale or exchange of the membership interest. Although there were no negotiations, as such, whatever discussions took place with the L.L.C. were carried on by officers of Grecian Magnesite based in Greece. The decision to proceed with the redemption was made in Greece, and all documents were signed in Greece. Grecian Magnesite did not maintain an office of its own in the U.S. but did employ individuals located in the U.S.

A portion of the redemption proceeds was properly allocable to appreciation of U.S. real property. The balance related to active business operations that appreciated in value during the period in which Grecian Magnesite was a member of the L.L.C. Grecian Magnesite was examined by the I.R.S., and a notice of deficiency was issued in 2012 – about the time that the I.R.S. field service advice was issued asserting the validity of the Rev. Rul. 91-32.

The I.R.S. asserted that the capital gain was properly treated as effectively connected income ("E.C.I.") because Grecian Magnesite was engaged in a trade or business as a result of its investment in the L.L.C. Grecian Magnesite's position on audit was that the assets of the L.L.C. did not control the character of the gain from a disposition of an interest in the L.L.C. Even if it did, the gain was not treated as U.S.-source gain under U.S. tax law4 and cannot be taxed in the U.S. as E.C.I. under the general rule that foreign-source income cannot be E.C.I.5 except in three instances that are not relevant to the facts of the case. After almost three years from submission of briefs, the Tax Court ruled in favor of Grecian Magnesite.


At the level of the Tax Court, the I.R.S. argued that the aggregate theory of partnerships should prevail. Under this view, the redemption of the partnership interest is properly viewed as a sale of the partner's indirect interest in all the underlying assets that make up the business of the partnership. Because those assets produced E.C.I. for the foreign partner, the I.R.S. argued that the redemption gain is characterized as E.C.I. In broad terms, the I.R.S. argued that whether the L.L.C. sold the assets or the foreign partner sold a partnership interest, the tax result should not differ materially as to the character of the gain. The Tax Court rejected the I.R.S. argument and ruled that in the context of a sale of a partnership interest the entity theory should prevail. Under this view, a partnership interest is viewed as a sale of an indivisible capital asset in the form of the membership interest.

In reaching its conclusion, the Tax Court dismissed the validity of Rev. Rul. 91-32 because it improperly interpreted the text of the statute and was not supported by adequate reasoning. In declining to defer to the ruling, the court also criticized the ruling's treatment of the international issues. The Tax Court then addressed the nature of the redemption under the partnership rules of Subchapter K and determined that a redemption payment is treated as distribution by a partnership, and to the extent the distribution exceeds the basis in the partner's interest in the partnership, gain recognized in the transaction is considered gain from the sale or exchange of the partnership interest. For purposes of that transaction, the partnership is properly treated as an entity, so that the asset exchanged is the interest held by the partner and not an undivided interest in all assets owned by the partnership.

The Tax Court then addressed the source of the gain. To be taxable for Grecian Magnesite, the gain must be from a U.S. source. As the source of gain from the sale of personal property is generally allocated to the country of residence of the seller, the gain recognized by Grecian Magnesite would be considered to be foreign-source income unless an exception were to apply. Here the relevant exception is that gain derived by a foreign corporation could be viewed to be U.S.-source gain where attributable to the partner's U.S. office.

While Grecian Magnesite had no office in the U.S., the L.L.C.'s office was, arguably, attributed to it in connection with income generated by day-to-day operations. However, that does not mean that gain from the redemption of an interest in an L.L.C. is attributable to the office of the L.L.C.

For the gain to be U.S.-source income the L.L.C. office must (i) be a material factor in the production of the redemption gain of Grecian Magnesite and (ii) regularly carry on activities of the type from which the gain is derived – namely the redemption of membership interests. Because the actual transaction was a redemption of a membership interest and not a hypothetical sale of underlying L.L.C. assets, the L.L.C.'s office was not be a material factor in the redemption transact ion.

The I.R.S. did not offer an explanation of why it believed the U.S. office was a material in the redemption transaction. Instead, it argued that the office was material in the realization of the gain because the office increased the overall value of the interest through its operation of the business. This argument was dismissed by the Tax Court.

In the Tax Court's view, the I.R.S. confused the ongoing value of a business operation and gain arising from the redemption of a membership interest. The L.L.C. office did not represent the foreign member in negotiating or performing an activity that was necessary in the realization of the redemption gain by Grecian Magnesite.

Additionally, the Tax Court ruled that even if the U.S. office of the L.L.C. were a material factor in the redemption transaction, the gain was not realized in the ordinary course of the L.L.C.'s business conducted through its office. Redeeming membership interests was not part of the day-to-day business operation of the L.L.C. Consequently, the redemption gain of a foreign member was not part of the ordinary trade or business activity carried on by the U.S. office of the L.L.C. In sum, the gain was not attributable to a U.S. office.


On appeal, the I.R.S. argued that issue related to the character of the gain and the gain arose from the activity of the U.S. office. It was therefore proper to treat the gain as U.S.-source gain attributable to a U.S. office. In its view, the Tax Court erred by focusing exclusively on the selling activity. It should have looked at value creation. Because the partnership interest appreciated in value as a result of the success of the business in which the U.S. office undoubtedly participated in a material way, the gain must be attributed to that office. This argument was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

The I.R.S. also argued the validity of the I.R.S. position enunciated in Rev. Rul. 91-32 and claimed that a long-held position of the I.R.S. is entitled to deference. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Initially the appeals court determined that Rev. Rul. 91-32. was not entitled to deference no matter the length of time it was held by the I.R.S.:

While the Revenue Ruling has the benefit of longevity—it has been the IRS's unchanged position for some thirty years—little else militates in favor of deferring to it. The pertinent portion comprises a single unreasoned sentence in a Ruling that spans four pages of the Cumulative Bulletin. . . . That sentence cites the relevant statute, § 865(e)(3), but without any elaboration. And it also cites a Tax Court decision, Unger v. Comm'r, 58 T.C.M. (CCH) 1157, 1159 (1990), which neither involved nor purported to opine on the attribution of income from the sale of personal property by a foreign partner.

Having addressed the first two arguments of the I.R.S., the Court of Appeals focused on the regulations and legislative history behind the adoption of the E.C.I. concept in the Code. Both clearly indicate that the U.S. office rule is directed to the transaction rather than the appreciation of the asset. The Court of Appeals explained:

The provisions at issue apply not only to the disposition of partnership interests but also to the sale of myriad other personal property. It is doubtful that Congress would have intended to source income according to the innumerable forces that change the market value of most personal property. In that light, Congress's choice to emphasize the sale struck an understandable balance between its dual aims of administrability and avoiding manipulation.

Having ruled that the gain can be effectively connected only when the activity of the U.S. office is a material factor in arranging the transaction, the Court of Appeals examined whether the U.S. office materially participated in the redemption transaction. The I.R.S. argued that partnerships are inherently engaged in the business of managing transactions with members, and therefore, the U.S. office of the L.L.C. should be viewed as regularly being engaged in activities like redemptions. Again, this argument was dismissed.

In the view of the Appeals Court, the U.S. office of the L.L.C. regularly carried on activities related to the magnesite-mining business. It was not in the business of carrying on the redemption activities of its members. Production and sale of magnesite comprised the principal activity of the L.L.C., and that activity was carried on regularly by L.L.C. employees. In comparison, the redemption of membership interests was a rare occurrence. Therefore, redemptions were not part of the regular trade or business of the L.L.C.


As a final point, the Court of Appeals noted that its decision has little significance as a matter of prospective transactions. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 revised the tax law after the Tax Court issued its decision by adopting the aggregate theory of partnerships when determining the character of gain arising from a disposition or redemption of a partnership interest. That legislation enshrines one of the positions the I.R.S. unsuccessfully advanced before the Tax Court. The amended provision will control the outcome of disputes arising under the revised law. A dispute arising from prior law is controlled by the principles of prior law discussed here.


1. 149 T.C. 3 (2017).

2. For a full discussion of the validity of Rev. Rul. 91-32 prior to the holdings in the Grecian Magnesite decisions in the Tax Court and the Court of Appeals, see "Sale of a Partnership Interest by a Foreign Partner – Is Rev. Rul. 91-32 Based on Law or Administrative Wishes?" Insights 6 (2017).

3. FAA 20123903F.

4. Code §865(a)(2). An exception that applies to sales attributable to a U.S. office that materially participates in a sale is not applicable as no such office existed and could not have engaged in material participation. See Code §865(e)(2)(A).

5. Code §864(c)(4)(A).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions