United States: Piercing The LLC Veil—Is Tax Classification A Relevant Characteristic?

While the equitable remedy of veil piercing "seems to happen freakishly, like lightning, it is rare, severe and unprincipled"1; it seems that courts are finding that its limitations and principles as developed in the context of the corporation are applicable in the context of LLCs. For example, in Kubican v. The Tavern, LLC, the West Virginia Supreme Court wrote: "Accordingly, we hold that W. Va. Code §31B-3-303 permits the equitable remedy of piercing the veil to be asserted against a West Virginia Limited Liability Company."2 This also appears to be the case in Delaware.3 As observed in Bowen v. 707 On Main, "The principle of piercing the corporate veil ... also is applicable to limited liability companies and their members."4 Still, courts are struggling with certain aspects of the application of piercing doctrine to LLCs, especially the question of "compliance with [corporate] formalities."5 Another feature that is making an appearance in favor of piercing is the consideration of the tax status of the LLC.

As is discussed below, tax treatment has no place in the piercing analysis, and tax classification should not be a factor in whether or not to set aside the rule of limited liability.

GreenHunter Energy

In GreenHunter Energy, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the piercing of a single-member LLC, therein permitting issues of tax classification and treatment be utilized as part of a decision to pierce. This reliance upon tax characteristics is a troubling concept.6

GreenHunter Energy, Inc. was the sole member of GreenHunter Wind Energy, LLC (the "LLC"). The LLC contracted with Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. ("Western") for certain consulting services. Western was never paid for those services. After receiving a judgment in its favor against the LLC exceeding $43,000 and finding the LLC without assets to satisfy the judgment, an action was brought against the corporate member seeking to pierce the veil of the LLC.

Initially, it is worthy of note that the opinion describes piercing as the "extraordinary equitable remedy," providing further support to the notion that piercing is not of itself a cause of action.7 Further, the Court noted that this determination, as are all determinations on piercing, must be made "under the specific circumstances of [the] case."8

The single-member LLC had, for itself, no employees. Rather, employees of the member corporation performed services on behalf of the LLC. The most damning factor in support of piercing was the under-capitalization of the LLC. Essentially, it had no dedicated capital. Rather, from time to time, the parent corporation would contribute certain amounts to the LLC with the direction that certain invoices be satisfied. Needless to say, no contribution was ever made for the purpose of satisfying the plaintiff's invoices. This control of what invoices would and would not be satisfied also indicated the parent's inappropriate domination of the LLC's activities.

To this point, the opinion appears to be well within the accepted grounds and factors for piercing the veil. That said, there are troubling aspects of this opinion in that the trial court appeared to focus on issues of tax classification of the LLC, an analysis that was permitted by the Wyoming Supreme Court. This single-member LLC had a federal default tax classification as a "disregarded entity," and no election was filed to treat the LLC as an association taxable as a corporation.9 It was noted that the LLC's tax return was consolidated with that of its corporate parent; consequent thereto, the parent was able to deduct $884,092 in expenses and claim an additional loss of $61,047.10 From these facts the Court concluded:

Appellant has enjoyed significant tax breaks attributable to the LLC's losses, without bearing any responsibility for the LLC's debt and obligations that contributed to such losses. Such a disparity of the risk and rewards resulting from this manipulation would lead to injustice.11

When the corporate defendant pointed out that "Federal tax law allows the LLC's losses to be attributed to [the single-member] and a consolidated tax return filed," the Supreme Court noted that the tax treatment was only one factor utilized in the determination to pierce the veil:

Instead, [the trial court] considered Appellant's tax filings as only one of many relevant pieces of evidence demonstrating that Appellant directed benefits from the LLC to itself, while at the same time it concentrated wind farm project debts it decided would not be paid in the LLC.12

So there you have it—the Wyoming Supreme Court believes that a liability shield is more subject to being pierced if the primary obligor is taxed on a passthrough basis. This decision is not unique. For example, in Rednour Properties, LLC v. Spangler Roof Services, LLC,13 the piercing of a single-member LLC was affirmed on the basis that it was a single-member LLC that had been organized "for tax purposes."14

But There is Contrary Law

There are cases holding to the contrary, namely that tax treatment is not a factor in piercing. For example, in Madison County Com. District v. CenturyLink, Inc.,15 in assessing whether there would be jurisdiction over a corporate parent, the fact of a consolidated tax return was found to not support piercing. In support of that determination, the Madison County court cited AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert16 and Dalton v. RAW Marine, Inc.,17 each for the proposition that filing a consolidated tax return is not a basis for piercing the veil. On the analogous point, the filing by an LLC of a "partnership" return does not change the nature of the relationship between the LLC's members into a partnership relationship.18 In response to the argument that consolidated tax returns justify piercing, the decision in Newman v. Motorola, Inc.19 provides:

These allegations are insufficient to warrant piercing the corporate veil when Verizon Wireless exists as a separate corporate entity, maintains its own financial records, has a separate purpose, and when there has been no allegation that it exists solely as a sham corporation.20

Likewise, in In re American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,21 the court held that a consolidated financial statement, even when combined with interlocking directors, did not support piercing.22 In Alkanani v. Aegis Defense Services, Inc.,23 responding to an effort to utilize tax treatment in order to pierce, the court wrote:

Fourth, Plaintiff also failed to provide any case law supporting his theory of attributing liability to Aegis LLC because of the existence of a pass-through tax structure of a disregarded entity. Between 2006 and 2008, when 100% of Aegis LLC's shares were owned by Aegis UK, Aegis LLC was treated as a disregarded entity by the IRS and the taxable income earned by Aegis LLC was reflected in federal and District of Columbia tax returns filed by Aegis UK. In the case of a limited liability corporation [sic] with only one owner, the limited liability corporation [sic] must be classified as a disregarded entity. Instead of filing a separate tax return for the limited liability corporation, the owner would report the income of the disregarded entity directly on the owner's tax return.24

Tax Treatment Should Not be a Piercing Factor

It is not appropriate to incorporate into piercing analysis the question of tax classification. Initially, to do so draws a line between entities that are for tax purposes treated on a passthrough basis versus those that are taxed on the entity basis, setting the former on a path towards piercing while the latter are not. In an age in which most employment is provided by passthrough organizations,25 it is bad policy to suggest that those organizations are ab initio more prone to being pierced then are traditional corporations taxed under Subchapter C.

Second, tax classification in no manner impacts upon whether the entity in question has been misused to the detriment of the third-party. In GreenHunter Energy, for example, had the LLC been taxed as a C corporation, with all other facts remaining the same, the LLC still would have been without assets with which to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. The tax treatment of the organization did not impact the pool of funds available as the proverbial "trust fund" to which creditors look for satisfaction of their claims.26 While in GreenHunter Energy the parent was able to claim losses, those losses were generated by either capital contributed to the LLC and then disbursed in satisfaction of LLC obligations or by creditor financing. There is nothing ab initio improper in benefiting from the consequences of limited liability, namely shifting risk to unsecured creditors.27

Third, this sort of analysis introduces an unnecessary level of complexity in that numerous jurisdictions impose entity-level taxes on what are, for federal tax purposes, disregarded entities.28 If piercing analysis is to look at tax classification as a factor, what will be the result when there is a divergence between federal and state treatment? Will it weigh in favor of or against piercing that the entity is for federal purposes a passthrough entity, even as in its jurisdiction of organization it is subject to (and pays) entity-level taxes? What will be the result when the federal passthrough entity pays entity-level taxes in some of the jurisdictions in which it does business, but not in the one in which piercing is sought?


Piercing law is complicated enough without the introduction of another ill-defined factor, namely tax treatment. While the GreenHunter Energy decision is a mainstream application of under-capitalization and alter-ego analysis, its introduction of tax classification into the analysis is unfortunate and should not be followed by other courts.


1 See Frank H. Easterbrook and Daniel R. Fischel, Limited Liability and the Corporation, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 89 (1985).

2 Kubican v. The Tavern, LLC, 752 SE2d 299 (W. Va. 2013). See also Filo Am., Inc. v. Olhoss Trading Co., L.L.C., 321 FSupp2d 1266, 1269 (M.D. Ala. 2004) ("commentators who have discussed the issue as a nationwide matter have concluded that the 'veil-piercing' doctrine applies to LLCs. ... Further, the courts in other States that have considered whether the 'veil-piercing' doctrine applies to LLCs have concluded that it does.").

3 NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC Communications, LLC, CA-2, 537 F3d 168, 178 (2008) (indicating that the rules for piercing the veil of an LLC should be the same as that employed for piercing the veil of a corporation except there should be less weight upon the following of formalities) (applying Delaware law); Westmeyer v. Flynn, 889 NE2d 671 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2008) (Delaware will apply the same rule for piercing an LLC as it does to piercing a corporation).

4 Bowen v. 707 On Main, No. CV020282643S, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 375 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2004). See also Seater Construction Company, Inc. v. Deka Investments, LLC, No. 2–12–1140, 2013 IL App (2d) 121140-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2013).

"A court may disregard the separate LLC entity and the protective veil it provides to an individual member of the LLC when that member, in order to defeat justice or perpetuate fraud, conducts his personal and LLC business as if they were one by comingling the two on an interchangeable or joint basis or confusing otherwise separate properties, records or control." Bonner v. Bruson, 585 S.E.2d 917, 918 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

The propriety of applying a piercing analysis to LLCs is recognized as well in the comments to the Revised Uniform LLC Act. See Rev. Unif. Limited Liab. Co. Act, §304(b), comment, 6B U.L.A. 476 (2008).

Subsection (b)—This subsection pertains to the equitable doctrine of "piercing the veil"—i.e., conflating an entity and its owners to hold one liable for the obligations of the other. The doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" is wellestablished, and courts regularly (and sometimes almost reflexively) apply that doctrine to limited liability companies. In the corporate realm, "disregard of corporate formalities" is a key factor in the piercing analysis. In the realm of LLCs, that factor is inappropriate, because informality of organization and operation is both common and desired.

This subsection does not preclude consideration of another key piercing factor—disregard by an entity's owners of the entity's economic separateness from the owners.

5 See, e.g., Kaycee Land and Livestock v. Flahive, 46 P3d 323, 328 (Wyo. 2002) ("many of the organizational formalities applicable to corporations do not apply to LLCs."). Certain LLC Acts have sought to minimize or eliminate formalities as an element in piercing analysis. See, e.g., 805 ILCS 180/10-10(c) (1998) ("The failure of a limited liability company to observe the usual company formalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its company powers or management of its business is not a ground for imposing personal liability on the members or managers for liabilities of the company."); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §275.185(4) ("Failure of the limited liability company to keep or maintain any of the records or information required pursuant to this section shall not be grounds for imposing liability on any member or manager for the debts and obligations of the limited liability company."); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §47-34A-303(b) ("The failure of a limited liability company to observe the usual company formalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its company powers or management of its business is not a ground for imposing personal liability on the members or managers for liabilities of the company.").

6 GreenHunter Energy, Inc. v. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., No., 2014 WY 144, 337 P.3d 454 (Wyo. 2014).

7 Id. Accord Spradlin v. Beads and Steeds Inns, LLC (In re Howland), 516 BR 163 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 2014) (piercing is a remedy and not a cause of action).

8 GreenHunter Energy, supra note 6. (the test for piercing "is fact-driven and flexible.").

9 See also Reg. §301.7701-3(b)(1)(ii) (default classification of SMLLC).

10 GreenHunter Energy, supra note 6. See also Reg. §301.7701-3(b)(1)(ii).

11 Id.

12 GreenHunter Energy, supra note 6. See also Reg. §301.7701-3(b)(1)(ii).

13 Rednour Properties, LLC v. Spengler Roof Services, LLC, No. 2009-CA-001159-MR, 2011 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 974 (Ky. App. June 10, 2011, modified July 8, 2011; on April 18, 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court ordered that this decision not be published).

14 What were those tax purposes were never detailed. Subsequently, the Kentucky LLC Act was amended to make express that being an SMLLC is not a basis for piercing. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §275.150(1) ("That a limited liability company has a single member or a single manager is not a basis for setting aside the rule otherwise recited in this subsection.").

15 Madison County Com. District v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. CV 12-J-1768-NE, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180066 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 20, 2012).

16 AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, CA-9, 94 F3d 586, 591 (1996) ("LBC's decision to include Keystone in its consolidated tax return hardly demonstrates domination.").

17 Dalton v. RAW Marine, Inc., CA-5, 897 F2d 1359, 1363 (1990).

18 See Dickinson v. Martin Collins Surfaces & Footings, LLC, Civil Case No. 5:11-CV-281-JMH (E.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2012).

19 Newman v. Motorola, Inc., DC-Md, 125 F Supp. 2d 717 (2000).

20 In Drumm Corp. v. Wright, 755 SE2d 850 (Gn. App. 2014), the court found that the filing of a consolidated state franchise tax return did not support an argument for piercing, citing in support thereof Madison County and Newman.

21 In re American Honda Motor Co., Inc., DC-Md., 941 FSupp. 528 (1996).

22 Id. at 551-52.

23 Alkanani v. Aegis Defense Services, Inc., DC-D.C., 976 F Supp2d 1 (2013).

24 Id. at 9 (citations omitted).

25 Most of the Private Sector Workforce is Employed by Pass-through Businesses, The Tax Foundation (Oct. 29, 2014), available at: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/most-private-sector-workforceemployed-pass-through-businesses.

26 See, e.g., Bing v. Cincinnati, 56 FSupp at 846, citing Metropolitan Fire Ins. Co. v. Middendorf, 188 SW 790, 794 (Ky. 1916) ("Corporate property is essentially a trust fund to be used for the benefit of creditors and shareholders.") (quoting Gluck & Becker, Receivers for Corporations).

27 See, e.g., I. Maurice Wormser, Disregard of the Corporate Fiction and Allied Corporation Problems, 18 (Baker Voorhis & Co., 1927) ("The policy of our law to-day sanctions incorporation with the consequent immunity from individual liability. It follows that no fraud is committed in incorporating for the precise purpose of avoiding and escaping personal responsibility. Indeed, that is exactly why most people incorporate, and those dealing with corporations know, or at least are presumed to know, the law in this regard."); Bainbridge, Abolishing LLC Veil Piercing, 2005 U. Ill. L. Rev. 77, 95 ("It is generally accepted that limited liability creates negative externalities. Limited liability allows equity holders to cause the firm to externalize part of the risk and costs of doing business onto other constituencies of the firm and, perhaps, even onto society at large.").

28 See, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §141.0401. Entitylevel taxes imposed upon LLCs are reviewed in Bruce P. Ely et al., An Update on the State Tax Treatment of LLCs and LLPs, Tax Analysts, March 2, 2015.

This article was originally published in the Journal of Passthrough Entities, a bi-monthly journal published by Wolters Kluwer. All views expressed in the articles and columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of Wolters Kluwer or any other person.

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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.