This is a very dated notion. In the days of old, when K-1 packages were delivered in the mail, tax professionals likened the Schedule K-1 to that of an annual report. Firms took great pride in creating their “proprietary” K-1s that had a professional look and feel detailed information and were executed consistently across the firm. But this simply no longer applies.
Today, however, K-1s are distributed through and downloaded from web portals. And for reasons we will get into in Myth #4, data is pulled and aggregated by teams of people, and sometimes, even bots. The goal of collecting this information from investors is to quickly gather the data, extract what is needed and add it to other K-1 data so that the investor’s tax liability and filing responsibilities can be ascertained.
In addition, most K-1 packets are delivered to partners and investors piecemeal. For example, first, an estimated K-1 is received, then the federal data, then the state and local information, and lastly, the international data and Schedule K-3. Sometimes, investors receive corrected or amended federal data before they have received the last pieces of state and international information. Given the late delivery of the K-1 package, the staffing shortage, and the overall complexity of the process, K-1s are downloaded and immediately scanned, marked up, and moved to the next stage. No one is taking time to revel in the beauty of that packaged K-1.
Furthermore, when we asked large institutional investors whether it is more important to follow the prior year’s format for a particular K-1 or mirror formats of a common standard, they unilaterally indicated that following a standard format would be far more important. Do you remember getting guidance in high school that your papers should follow the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) Principle? The KISS Principle is based on two theories:
Let’s put that into the context of a K-1.
People will be interested in a K-1 that gives them the information they need in a structure that they can understand, and with access to data they can seamlessly tap into their systems.
Tax is very complicated. Plus, making tax determinations and allocating those tax attributes amongst the partners is a complex process — especially as reporting requirements continue to grow. Complexity is compounded when the recipients of a K-1 packet are looking for different details based on their legal entity. But we can simplify the overall presentation of these items if we think about the footnotes as a story with a beginning, middle, and end.
The Beginning: Laying out the details
The Middle: Interpreting how these details affect the investor’s tax responsibilities:
The End: How the collective information from all K-1s creates the tax picture for a legal entity.
This is why a consistent format is so important. As individual K-1s are analyzed, it is important to aggregate this information across the entire portfolio of K-1s since this aggregated data is what is establishing the tax liability and filing responsibilities.
Following a straightforward, consistent format is the first step toward the next generation of K-1 reporting.