Substance Versus Form, Part I: The Economic Substance Doctrine – How Tax Works
Feb 16, 2026
In episode 46 of How Tax Works, Matt Foreman begins his discussion of substance versus form issues, beginning with the Economic Substance Doctrine, from its beginnings in case law to its codification in I.R.C. ? 7701(o).
Listen to the episode here:
Follow us on Bluesky: @howtaxworks.bsky.social
How Tax Works, hosted by FRB Partner Matthew E. Foreman, Esq., LL.M., delves into the intricacies of taxation, breaking down complex concepts for a clearer understanding of how tax laws impact your financial decisions. Through this, listeners are treated to a comprehensive breakdown of entity structures, from the robust shield of C corporations to the flexibility of partnerships and LLCs. Foreman navigates through the maze of tax considerations, shedding light on entity-level taxation, shareholder responsibilities, and nuanced tax strategies. Foreman shares valuable insights and practical advice, emphasizing the need for informed decision-making and consultation with tax professionals. From qualified small business stock to state and local tax considerations, no stone is left unturned in this illuminating exploration of tax law and entity selection.
Whether you’re a seasoned entrepreneur, accountant, lawyer, or financial advisor, How Tax Works offers a wealth of knowledge to empower you in making sound business decisions. Tune in and embark on a journey to unravel the complexities of tax law, one episode at a time.
This podcast may be considered attorney advertising. This podcast is not presented for purposes of legal advice or for providing a legal opinion. Before any of the presenting attorneys can provide legal advice to any person or entity, and before an attorney-client relationship is formed, that attorney must have a signed fee agreement with a client setting forth the firm’s scope of representation and the fees that will be charged.
Transcript:
**This transcript has been prepared automatically by AI and may contain inaccuracies**
Matthew Foreman [00:00]
Hello and welcome to the 46th episode of How Tax Works. I’m Matthew Foreman. In this episode, I’ll discuss the economic substance doctrine and the step transaction doctrine in the context of—I’ll just call them—tax-focused or tax-influenced investments. I’m not sure what the right phrase is, but that’s what we’re talking about. This one’s going to turn into two episodes. I tried to do it in one, but there’s just too much going on, so I’m splitting it into two. I think they flow pretty well together, though, so we’ll see how that goes.
How Tax Works is meant for informational and entertainment purposes only. This may be attorney advertising, and it is not legal advice. Please hire your own attorney. *How Tax Works* is intended to help listeners navigate the intricacies and complexities of tax law, regulations, case law, and guidance to demystify how taxes shape the financial and business decisions we all make. Great job with the breathing—saying stuff there, can’t take me anywhere. Anyway, you can leave that one in, fine.
Before we get started, a few administrative things: new episodes every two weeks. Next episode, we’ll dive into the step transaction doctrine and more discussions of what it is and how it applies. I find stuff like this really interesting because it’s the ultimate gray area. Sometimes there are firm answers, but a lot of times, there’s no clear answer.
If you have any questions, comments, or constructive criticism, you can email me at my FRB email address. I’ll be doing a few more webinars this spring—probably only two or three, maybe in May, a little tighter. We’ll see how it goes. After tax season, a lot of councils do this.
All right, let’s get going: economic substance and step transactions—this is substance versus form, part one. Tax-focused or tax-influenced investments: some are really bold. You can buy certain tax credits, like in New Jersey, R&D credits, for example.
Matthew Foreman [00:02:23]
There were a lot of energy credits that had markets but got killed—they no longer exist. But then there’s this gray area: tax shelters and other structures that create tax benefits that maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t. Section 469, passive activity loss rules, Section 465, at-risk rules, portfolio income issues under 469, trust issues, grants or non-grants, partnerships—lots of partnership structures used to sidestep rules. Mixing bowls, substantial economic effect with transitory allocations—sometimes the fundamental question is whether something is actually a partnership.
It’s kind of a silly question: “Well, it’s an LLC taxed as a partnership, isn’t it?” Maybe, maybe not. I’ll explain why with an extremely public example. These structures often come from advisors with licenses—CPA, EA, Esquire, CFP, LMNOP, LNE, RSTLNE—for those who get the reference. Just because someone has a license doesn’t mean they’re right, and not having a license doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Sometimes, I end up being the “bad guy,” which I’m okay with. I’ll come back and explain why a proposed transaction doesn’t work and go through the mechanics. Advisors sometimes quote Gregory about patriotic duty and taxes in their email signatures, but I always point out—Mrs. Gregory lost. That quote is cute, but moot. The form must comport with the substance unless firmly established otherwise. You must be able to cite code, regulations, cases, revenue rulings, and procedures.
The taxpayer is bound by the form they’ve chosen, but substance must prevail over empty forms. Every step of a transaction must have a business purpose or reason, not just tax benefits. The economic substance doctrine disallows transactions that have minimal or no economic effect aside from tax benefits.
Matthew Foreman [00:07:12]
The step transaction doctrine is slightly different but related. If you add a step in a larger transaction solely for tax benefit, that step can be undone, reversed, or combined with another step. You can ignore multiple steps if they exist only for tax benefits. I call it the three-party trade rule—like certain general managers in professional sports who seem to wiggle their way into deals.
There’s also the recharacterization doctrine, which flows into the other two: pure substance overruling form. Examples include business purpose, continuity of shareholder interest, continuity of business under enterprise rules, a lot of stuff under Section 368.
Now, let’s take a quick musical break, and we’ll come back to discuss the economic substance doctrine in detail.
Matthew Foreman [00:08:37]
We’re back. The economic substance doctrine was initially common law. On March 30, 2010, Section 7701(o) codified it. Congress made it clear: economic substance exists only if both of the following are true:
Ignoring federal income tax effects, the transaction changes the taxpayer’s economic position in a meaningful way.
The taxpayer has a substantial purpose for entering the transaction apart from federal income tax effects.
Federal income tax means just that—not state, estate, gift, or excise taxes. Many states follow 7701(o) rules. The economic substance doctrine disallows transactions lacking these elements, but a “transaction” includes a series of transactions. You can aggregate or eliminate steps in a larger transaction.
The difference between a tax-motivated step and a legitimate step is whether the overall transaction has a business purpose. Each step must have economic substance. The IRS has tried to apply the doctrine to steps in legitimate transactions, e.g., *FlexTronics*, 100 TCM 394, but was unsuccessful.
An LB&I directive (LB&I-04-0711-015) governs when auditors can apply the doctrine: it only applies when one or more tax-motivated steps bear a minor or incidental relationship to a common business or financial transaction. The IRS looks at promoters, minimal structuring, arms-length transactions with unrelated third parties, substantial risk of loss, and credible business purpose.
Auditors must get manager approval before pursuing economic substance questions. If the transaction is recast under the doctrine, there’s a 20% penalty under Section 6662(b)(6), increasing to 40% under 6662(i) if facts are not adequately disclosed. Adequate disclosure is critical—it can save you.
Matthew Foreman [00:17:56]
Two important examples: first, *Historic Boardwalk Hall*, a historic hall on the Jersey Shore needing rehabilitation. New Jersey provided historic renovation credits. A joint venture was formed, allocating credits 99/1 and profits 50/50. The state didn’t care about credits—they’re a tax-indifferent partner.
The district court held: no partnership existed, no business purpose, no economic substance. Credits were disallowed; funds were recharacterized. This case illustrates the importance of substance over form.
Second, when evaluating transactions, always ask: would you do this without the tax benefit? Some partnerships have deficit restoration obligations—a terrible idea from an investment standpoint if the partnership has a cash shortfall. Evaluate carefully.
Clients and other advisors sometimes ask about questionable structures. My answer depends: some are a hard no, some work but require careful structuring. Tax should not be the sole driver of a transaction.
That concludes the 46th episode of *How Tax Works*. I hope you learned something. In two weeks, I’ll return with the 47th episode to continue the discussion.
