• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

liskow_lewis_white_new

future-focused

  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
    • Energy Law Blog
    • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
    • Maritime Law Blog
    • Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub
Blogs

IRS Ruling Allows Multi-Line Family Business to Split Up the Business Lines Among Shareholders Tax-Free

06.04.26 | 3 minute read

Featured Image

A common theme we see today in family-owned businesses is the ownership of several lines of business either through a parent corporation with the original business and one or more subsidiaries holding other newer business lines or through a parent holding company and several subsidiaries holding the various business lines. At some point along the ownership journey, whether it be in a single multi-generational family or in a multi-family investment, certain owners may favor one or more of the business lines while other shareholders favor other business lines. A recent IRS private letter ruling provides a roadmap for separating and dividing those business lines among interested shareholders without incurring US federal income tax.

Private Letter Ruling 202622007, issued by the IRS Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate) on May 29, 2026, confirms that a proposed corporate separation transaction qualifies for tax-free treatment under IRC Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) (as a split-up). The ruling addressed a privately held corporation that conducted two distinct businesses through a single corporate structure: one directly and through disregarded entities, and a second through a wholly-owned limited liability company also treated as a disregarded entity. 

For valid business purposes, the company proposed to separate the two businesses into independent corporate entities, allowing certain shareholders to exit the original corporation and become owners of the newly independent company while the remaining shareholders retained their interests in the original. The proposed transaction involved converting a disregarded LLC into a corporation under state law or by federal tax election, followed by the distributing entity (“Distributing”) distributing the newly formed corporation’s stock to three of its five shareholders in exchange for some or all of their Distributing shares, leaving the remaining two shareholders holding interests only in Distributing. Following the distribution, the two businesses would be held and operated by entirely separate shareholder groups going forward.

The IRS confirmed that the entire transaction, including both the initial conversion of the LLC to corporate status and the subsequent distribution of shares to the departing shareholders, qualifies as a reorganization under Section 368(a)(1)(D) and a distribution under Section 355, with no gain or loss recognized at either the corporate or shareholder level. The IRS issued ten specific rulings covering the tax consequences of the proposed transaction. At the corporate level, neither the Distributing nor the controlled entity (“Controlled”) recognized gain or loss on the conversion, the distribution of Controlled stock, or the exchange of Distributing shares. Controlled took a carryover basis in all assets received from Distributing, and Controlled’s holding period for each asset tacked on to Distributing’s prior holding period. 

At the shareholder level, the shareholders who received Controlled stock recognized no gain or loss on the exchange, and their basis in the Controlled shares equaled the basis of the Distributing shares they surrendered, with holding periods carrying over from the surrendered shares. The ruling also confirmed that Distributing’s earnings and profits, if any, would be allocated between Distributing and Controlled in accordance with Section 312(h) and the applicable Treasury Regulations. Notably, the IRS expressly declined to rule on whether the distribution satisfied the business purpose requirement of Treasury Regulation Section 1.355-2(b), which remains a factual determination outside the scope of a PLR on structural tax consequences.

PLR 202622007 is a useful illustration of the planning flexibility available to privately held corporations seeking to separate distinct business operations among shareholders with divergent interests. Liskow attorneys Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade, John Rouchell, John Bradford, and Kevin Naccari can help your family business optimize the tax results of these family business separations. 

Primary Sidebar

Related Practices

  • Tax

Related Team

  • Leon H. Rittenberg III
  • Caroline Lafourcade
  • John A. Rouchell
  • John T. Bradford
  • Kevin Naccari
Liskow & Lewis, APLC
Arrow Icon

future-focused

  • Baton Rouge
  • Houston
  • Lafayette
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • © 2026 Liskow & Lewis, APLC
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Employee Login
Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
  • Offices
  • Pro Bono
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • DEI
  • The Energy Law Blog
  • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
  • The Maritime Law Blog