Tag: Carried Interest

Real Estate Coalition Urges Lawmakers to Preserve Longstanding Carried Interest Tax Rules

Posted on by Trey Jackson

The need for policymakers to preserve longstanding tax law governing partnerships and profits interests – carried interest – was the focus of a June 16 letter sent by The Real Estate Roundtable and 14 other national real estate organizations to congressional tax writers. 

Pending Proposals

  • The Biden administration’s budget includes a proposal to tax carried interest as ordinary income.  The Biden proposal, as well as pending House legislation (the Carried Interest Fairness Act, H.R. 1068), would result in an enormous tax increase on Americans who use partnerships to develop, own, and operate real estate. (Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 27 and April 30)
  • The real estate coalition’s letter emphasized that the proposed changes to taxation of carried interest would:
    • Increase the cost to construct or improve real estate and infrastructure, including workforce housing, senior living communities, industrial properties or investments that support economic inclusion or bring environmental benefits; 
    • Create unintended consequences for local communities. Property taxes on real estate contribute 75 percent of local tax revenue and provide a stable and reliable source of funding for critical public services like education and law enforcement; 
    • Create new tax barriers during the post-COVID era as buildings throughout the country need to be repurposed and converted.

Reality vs. Perception

  • The industry letter to policymakers also countered the false narrative that the carried interest issue targets only a handful of hedge fund billionaires and Wall Street executives. The letter notes the following realities:
    • The IRS reports that real estate partnerships represent half of the four million partnerships in the United States. These two million partnerships and their 8.6 million partners who own and operate multifamily rental housing, office buildings, shopping centers, hotels, distribution centers, senior living communities, and other commercial real estate in every town, city, and region of the country would face damaging impacts.
    • Carried interest involves recognition of the risks a general partner takes, including the funding of predevelopment costs; guaranteeing construction budgets and financing; and exposure to potential litigation.

Retroactive Change

  • The letter also notes that current proposals would limit capital gain treatment only to taxpayers who have cash to invest. Those who invest entrepreneurial innovation, risk taking, and sweat equity would no longer receive capital gain treatment.
  • The proposals would also apply retroactively to partnership agreements executed years, often decades, earlier.  Changing the tax treatment of proposals agreed to years earlier would undermine the predictability of the tax system and discourage long-term investment that encourages economic growth, according to the letter.

The Roundtable’s Tax Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) met June 16 during The Roundtable’s Annual Meeting to discuss the carried interest proposals and the current tax legislative landscape in Washington. 

#  #  # 

Legislation Reintroduced in the House to Change Taxation of Carried Interest

Posted on by Trey Jackson

A group of House Democrats led by Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ), chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, introduced the Carried Interest Fairness Act of 2021 (H.R. 1068) on Feb. 16. For taxpayers with a profits interest in a partnership that invests in capital assets, such as stock and real estate, the bill would convert long-term capital gain to ordinary income. (Pensions & Investments and Bisnow, Feb. 16)

  • As currently drafted, the House legislation would apply to dispositions of partnership interests, distributions of partnership property, and sales of partnership assets that occur in tax years ending after the date of enactment. Thus, if the bill became law this summer or fall, and a partnership’s tax year corresponded with the calendar year, the tax increase would apply to gains realized after December 31, 2020. There is no provision that would exempt or grandfather prior partnership agreements, even though the agreements were negotiated based on well-settled tax law as it existed at the time.
  • The top individual income tax rate today is 37%. The current maximum tax rate on long-term capital gain is 20%.  In some cases, an additional 3.8% tax on net investment income also applies. 
  • The six co-sponsors of H.R. 1068 are Reps. Reps. Don Beyer (D-VA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Judy Chu (D-CA), Andy Levin (D-MI), Katie Porter (D-CA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY). (Rep. Pascrell news release, Feb. 16).  Similar legislation has been introduced in every Congress since 2010.
  • In the Senate, incoming Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) outlined his tax agenda during a Jan. 13 call with reporters, including plans to move forward with an increase in the corporate tax rate and major changes in the taxation of individual capital gains. Wyden added he would also pursue raising the current 21% corporate tax rate and change the tax treatment of carried interest (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 15).
  • During the Presidential campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden did not put forward a carried interest proposal, but rather proposed raising the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains to create rate parity with wages, rental income, and other sources of ordinary income. 

The Roundtable & Carried Interest

  • The Roundtable has consistently opposed proposals to tax all carried interest at ordinary income rates. Congress likewise has consistently rejected proposals to recharacterize all profits interests as ordinary income. Carried interest is not compensation for services.  General partners receive fees for routine services like leasing and property management.  Those fees are taxed at ordinary tax rates.  The carried interest is granted for the value the general partner adds to the venture beyond routine services, such as business acumen, experience, and relationships.  It is also recognition of the risks the general partner takes with respect to the general partnership’s liabilities, such as predevelopment costs and potential litigation. 
  • “Taxing carried interest at ordinary income rates would discourage the risk taking and sweat equity that drives job creation and economic growth,” said Roundtable President and CEO Jeffrey DeBoer. “It would encourage real estate owners to borrow more money to avoid taking on equity partners, and it would make it more expensive to build or improve real estate and infrastructure, including workforce housing, assisted living communities, and industrial properties, to name just a few. Some development simply won’t happen, especially in long-neglected neighborhoods or on land with potential environmental contamination,” DeBoer added.
  • The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 created a 3-year holding period requirement for carried interest to qualify for the long-term capital gains rate.

As Congress considers additional economic recovery legislation, The Roundtable and its Tax Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) will continue working with policymakers, including the Congressional tax-writing committees, to preserve and improve tax rules that promote capital formation and the appropriate treatment of entrepreneurial activity and productive risk-taking.   

#  #  # 

Roundtable Commends Aspects of Proposed Carried Interest Regulations While Recommending Further Clarifications and Improvements

Posted on by Trey Jackson

The Real Estate Roundtable on Oct. 5 submitted detailed comments to the Treasury Department and IRS on proposed regulations implementing the 3-year holding period requirement for carried interests to qualify for long-term capital gain treatment.  (Roundtable comment letter)

  • Treasury on July 31 released the proposed rules under IRS Section 1061 to address the specific conditions that apply to the 3-year holding period requirement passed by Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.  (Roundtable Weekly, Aug. 7)
  • The Roundtable commended the agencies for a balanced approach on certain key issues addressed in regulations – yet recommended further clarifications and improvements to the proposed rules to retain the original intent of Congress.  
  • The Roundtable’s comments note that the IRS rules include a number of well-designed provisions that should help avoid unintended consequences when the 3-year holding period is implemented, including:

—  The 3-year requirement is limited to the gain from a sale or exchange of a capital asset – and excludes gain from property used in a trade business (Section 1231 gain). 

—  A useful “look-through” rule to help ensure REIT dividends paid to shareholders receive the same long-term gain treatment that would apply to assets owned individually or in partnership form.

—  A sensible exclusion to ensure a partner’s own capital contributions to the partnership are not subject to re-characterization under section 1061.

Recommendations for Additional Clarifications and Improvements

The Roundtable comment letter also recommends certain changes to the proposed regulations to bring the rules more in line with the legislative intent when Congress enacted section 1061.  The Roundtable recommendations include the following:

  • Provide a safe harbor to allow funds borrowed by a general partner to qualify as a capital interest in the partnership.  Investors frequently require a general partner to co-invest in the partnership to align the parties’ interests.  These co-investments often are financed with loans from the investors.  The proposed regulations would undermine the economics of these arrangements. The 3-year holding period would apply when an investment is made with funds borrowed from the other investors in the partnership.  The Roundtable recommends that the Treasury narrow the broad restriction on borrowed funds by creating a safe harbor for non-abusive situations.
  • Prevent improper acceleration of tax liability when a partnership interest is transferred in a nonrecognition transaction.  Section 1061(d) creates certain tax consequences for transfers of partnership interests to related parties.  The proposed regulations broadly interpret section 1061(d) to override other nonrecognition provisions in the tax code by requiring the inclusion of gross income as a result of such transfers.  The Roundtable recommends that Treasury narrow its current interpretation of the provision to avoid accelerating tax liability in the case of transfers of partnership interests to related parties in nonrecognition transactions.
  • Avoid casting too broad a net on partnerships covered by the 3-year holding period.  Congress limited section 1061 to partnership interests in businesses that raise or return capital on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis.  The proposed rules, however, largely disregard this prong of the test and could capture many real estate arrangements unintended by lawmakers, including joint ventures, operating partnerships, and others.  The Roundtable recommends that Treasury limit application of the provision to businesses that meet the statutory requirements. 

Roundtable President and CEO Jeffrey DeBoer concludes the letter by noting, “Congress . . . narrowly drafted section 1061 to apply to specific situations.  Our comments our aimed at preserving the drafters’ intent while avoiding unnecessary disruption to common, everyday real estate partnerships—small and large—throughout the country.”

The recommendations were developed by The Roundtable’s Tax Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC).

#  #  # 

Proposed Carried Interest Regulations Would Create Complex Regime for Taxing Partnership Profits’ Interests

Posted on by Trey Jackson

Proposed carried interest regulations released by the Treasury Department on July 31 would implement the three-year holding period requirement enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.  TCJA restricted eligibility for the reduced long-term capital gains rate in the case of certain capital gain allocated to a profits interest in a partnership if the investment is held for less than three years. 

  • The proposed rules under section 1061 represent the first formal Treasury regulations on the issue of carried interest since it emerged as a controversial political issue in 2007.
  • The 3-year holding period requirement reflects a compromise approach developed by key tax-writers during the 2017 tax reform debate.
  • Members of The Roundtable’s Tax Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) reviewed and discussed the proposed carried interest regulations on August 3. Critically, the 3-year holding period would not apply to property used in a trade or business (section 1231 gain).  In addition, the rules would permit REITs to report capital gains dividends in a manner that facilitates look-through treatment.  Thus, REIT shareholders could take into account whether the underlying REIT gain relates to property that meets the 3-year requirement or relates to property excluded from the rule because it gives rise to section 1231 gain.
  • Certain other aspects of the proposed rules appear less favorable.  For example, the regulations take an expansive view of what constitutes an “applicable partnership interest” subject to the regime.  The exemption for capital gain that relates to a partner’s capital interest involves complex rules and restrictions that may complicate its use.  The regulations appear to import a rule from pending legislation that would prevent partners from crediting partnership capital contributions that are attributable to a loan from other partners or the partnership.
  • Other important aspects of the new regime including detailed rules for: determining the “recharacterization amount” and the applicable holding period, anti-abuse measures, and reporting requirements. 

A TPAC working group will be convening in the days ahead to develop comments and recommendations for Treasury and IRS officials related to the proposed regulations. 

#  #  # 

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Introduces Bill to Tax Carried Interest at Ordinary Income Rates

Posted on by Trey Jackson

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) yesterday introduced legislation to fundamentally alter the longstanding tax treatment of a profits interest in a real estate partnership. 

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced legislation to fundamentally alter the longstanding tax treatment of a profits interest in a real estate partnership.

  • The Wyden proposal (detailed summary of the legislation and one-pager) would depart dramatically from prior carried interest legislation by taxing partners before any capital gain or even rental income is generated by the partnership.  For example, it would give rise to large amounts of taxable (but phantom) income for a general partner with a profits interest during the pre-construction and development phase of a real estate project.
  • The legislation would treat a profits interest in a real estate partnership as an interest-free loan from the other partners. The bill would effectively tax the partner with a profits interest annually, at ordinary income rates, on his or her deemed share of the invested capital by multiplying the deemed share by a specified interest rate (9% plus the variable yield on a corporate bond index that is currently 2.93%).  The product would be considered taxable, ordinary income.
  • In addition to taxing partners currently on non-existent, illusory income, in many cases the legislation would not allow partners to recover the taxes down the road if the project ultimately fails to produce a capital gain.  That’s because the losses would be treated as capital losses that generally are nondeductible against ordinary income. 
  • General partners are currently taxed at ordinary income rates on their management fees and other income that is compensatory in nature.  Partners owe tax on any guaranteed payments for services provided.  Under the Wyden bill, however, a real estate entrepreneur would be taxed today on a partnership’s invested capital-capital at risk-irrespective of whether the project will ever generate income.  

  • The  Real Estate Roundtable opposes both Senate and House carried interest proposals. General partners earning a carried interest in a real estate partnership bear significant risks beyond direct capital contributions. These risks can include funding predevelopment costs, guaranteeing construction budgets and financing, and exposure to potential litigation over countless possibilities. 

  • Senator Wyden’s bill came just days after a televised interview in which President Trump indicated he still intends to address the carried interest issue.  (FOXBusiness, May 20).  “If President Trump wants to address carried interest and make the tax code more fair, he’ll be happy to support my new proposal,” said Sen. Wyden. (Wyden news release, May 23) 
  • Other legislative proposals to reform the taxation of carried interest were introduced in March by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and House Ways and Means Committee member Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ).  (News releases: Baldwin and Pascrell)
  • The Roundtable and 13 other national real estate organizations sent a letter to members of the House Ways and Means Committee on March 26 about the adverse impact that the Baldwin-Pascrell legislation (H.R. 1735) would have on U.S. real estate and entrepreneurial risk taking.  (Roundtable Weekly, March 29)  
  • The letter notes how the bill would result in a huge tax increase on Americans who use partnerships in businesses of all types and sizes – and would be particularly harmful to the nearly 8 million partners in U.S. real estate partnerships.  
  • The March 26 letter states, “The false narrative surrounding the carried interest issue is that it targets only a handful of hedge fund billionaires and Wall Street executives.  The carried interest legislation is far broader and would apply to real estate partnerships of all sizes-from two friends owning and leasing a townhome to a large private real estate fund with institutional investors.” 

The Real Estate Roundtable opposes both Senate and House carried interest proposals.  General partners earning a carried interest in a real estate partnership bear significant risks beyond direct capital contributions. These risks can include funding predevelopment costs, guaranteeing construction budgets and financing, and exposure to potential litigation over countless possibilities.