Tag: Section 899 Retaliatory Tax Measures

Lawmakers have removed the Section 899 provision known as the “revenge tax” from the reconciliation package after the Treasury Department secured an international tax agreement with G7 countries. The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) strongly advocated for changes to the measure, warning that the tax would have deterred foreign investment in U.S. commercial real estate and weakened capital formation. (AP News, June 26)

Why It Matters

• Congressional Republicans agreed Thursday to strike Section 899 from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act at the request of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who announced a “joint understanding” with other G7 nations that he said will protect American companies from foreign tax discrimination. (NYT, June 26)

• In a post on X, Sec. Bessent said the provision was no longer necessary after the U.S. and its partners in the G7 reached a “joint understanding … that defends American interests.” (The Hill, June 26)

• Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) said they would remove the provision. But, they noted, “Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation.” (AP News, June 26)

• Section 899 would have raised U.S. taxes on inbound investment from countries with “unfair” tax regimes. RER and other industry groups told lawmakers that the mere proposal of the tax was chilling current foreign capital investment activity and warned that its enactment would substantially deter future investment, increase borrowing costs, and dampen property values.

• Earlier this week, Chairman Smith and White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett signaled that Section 899 could be removed from the bill if foreign governments—agreed to suspend policies like the Pillar Two global minimum tax and finalize related trade deals. (Reuters, June 25 | Bloomberg, June 25)

• The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) last week released a revised score showing that, under a Senate version of the bill, Section 899 would have raised only $12.5 billion over three years, compared to the $63 billion originally projected in the House version.

• The JCT estimate used the “current policy baseline” that assumes the extension of expiring tax provisions, lowing the bill’s total cost estimate to $442 billion. (Politico, June 22)

RER Advocacy

• RER has been at the forefront of the policy debate surrounding Section 899, strongly advocating for its elimination or revision. Following weeks of one-on-one meetings with policymakers, a delegation of RER members and their counsel met last week with leading Congressional tax staff.  

• The views expressed are summarized in comment letters submitted on June 12 and June 23 to congressional leaders, warning of its harmful impact on investment, job creation, and market stability. (Bisnow, June 25)

• “We commend congressional leaders and the Trump administration for removing Section 899 from the reconciliation bill,” said Jeffrey DeBoer, RER President and CEO. “This provision would have increased market volatility, discouraged inbound capital, and imposed higher borrowing costs on American real estate owners—ultimately reducing job creation, slowing economic growth, and diminishing U.S. competitiveness. Its removal helps preserve access to foreign capital and supports continued investment in communities across the country.”

• RER this week joined a coalition of leading trade groups representing private equity, managed funds, and the securities industries in urging the Senate to include a passive investment exemption in Section 899—a provision in both the House and Senate tax bills that would have raised taxes on inbound investment from countries with “discriminatory” tax regimes. (Letter, June 23) (Bisnow, June 25)

• “The threat of Section 899 is already having a chilling effect on investment decisions,” said Ryan McCormick, RER’s SVP & Counsel. “These investors are highly mobile, so rather than paying the higher tax rate, they will simply invest elsewhere.” (Bisnow, June 25)

• The coalition letter states, “Applying Section 899 to all forms of inbound passive investment would result in a significant increase in market volatility and a decline in investment in U.S. companies and our capital markets.” (Pensions&Investments, June 24)

• RER also sent a letter on June 12 to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Finance Committee Chair Crapo, calling for changes to the Section 899 tax proposal and cautioningthat without changes, the measure could potentially drive up borrowing costs, depress property values, and significantly deter foreign investment in housing, commercial developments, and infrastructure projects nationwide. (Letter, June 12 | RW, June 23)

The removal of Section 899 represents a meaningful policy outcome for commercial real estate, helping to protect investment flows and market stability. RER will continue working with Congress to ensure the final tax package supports capital formation, economic growth, and job creation.

The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) and a coalition of real estate organizations sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID) this week, calling for changes to the House-passed Section 899 tax proposal to prevent harm to U.S. real estate investment, property values, and economic growth. (Letter, June 12)

Why it Matters

• The retaliatory tax provision is part of the broader House reconciliation package and would impose steep tax increases on investors from countries that enact “unfair” taxes on U.S. businesses.  (Bloomberg, June 12)

• The coalition letter cautions that, without changes, the retaliatory tax measure could potentially drive up borrowing costs, depress property values, and significantly deter foreign investment in housing, commercial developments, and infrastructure projects nationwide. (PoliticoPro, June 13)

• As drafted, the policy would apply broadly to both equity and debt investments in U.S. real estate, including capital gains, REIT dividends, and interest income—regardless of whether the investor has any controlling stake in the U.S. property.

• The coalition urges the Senate to revise Section 899 to exempt non-controlling real estate investments—passive holdings that do not involve day-to-day management.

• The coalition is also seeking to ensure the exemption applies to both new and existing transactions made under current law and tax treaties, and prevent an unintended retroactive tax increase that could disrupt capital markets and undermine confidence in U.S. investment stability. (Letter, June 12)

• On Institutional Real Estate, Inc.’s podcast this week, RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer emphasized the importance of maintaining stable, predictable tax policy to attract investment and fuel economic growth—echoing the coalition’s call for Senate revisions to Section 899 that avoid discouraging capital formation in U.S. real estate. (IREI Podcast, June)

• Speaking at the NYU Federal Real Estate and Partnerships Tax Conference today, RER Senior Vice President and Counsel Ryan McCormick warned that Section 899 “would impose higher tax rates on foreign capital that is critical to U.S. real estate, impacting interest income, REIT dividends, and direct property investments. Without an exemption for passive investors, it would have a chilling impact on investment, raise borrowing costs, and slow economic growth.”

By the Numbers

• Over the past five years, foreign sources have invested more than $213 billion in U.S. commercial real estate, including $57 billion in multifamily housing. This cross-border capital supports construction, jobs, housing affordability, and local tax revenue. (Letter, June 12)

• The Joint Committee on Taxation has projected that Section 899 would lead to a “decline in foreign demand for U.S. investment” and ultimately reduce Treasury revenues. (AP News, June 10)

• The Global Business Alliance, which represents foreign multinationals with U.S. operations, released a new study on Tuesday that found Section 899 would result in $100 billion a year in lost gross domestic product. ( PoliticoPro, June 11)

View from Capitol Hill

• Republican senators have said they’re taking a deeper look at that provision and could make changes when the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the tax bill is released. (PoliticoPro, June 13)

• During a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the so-called revenge tax in the GOP megabill, in the face of concerns that it could deter foreign investment. (Watch Hearing | PoliticoPro, June 11)

• Secretary Bessent also testified at the Senate Finance Committee hearing on the president’s fiscal 2026 budget request for the Treasury and tax reform on Thursday.

• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who’s questioned the proposal, told reporters Tuesday that he at least expects a delay in the proposal. (Bloomberg, June 10)

• House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) indicated the preferred outcome would be for the revenge tax never to take effect, urging foreign governments to eliminate discriminatory measures, such as digital services taxes. (PoliticoPro, June 11)

What’s Next

Senate Finance Republicans are expected to release revised legislative text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the coming weeks. “We’re working as aggressively as we can to move as fast as we can,” Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID) said. (Politico, June 9)

RER continues to advocate for smart tax policy that avoids unintended consequences while maintaining the U.S. real estate market’s global competitiveness.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act approved by the House of Representatives last week would raise tax rates on foreign governments, firms, partnerships and individuals from any foreign country that imposes “unfair foreign taxes.”

Proposed Section 899

• The so-called section 899 “retaliatory tax measures” legislation was a significant topic at this week’s Real Estate Roundtable Tax Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) meeting. A discussion of the legislation was led by Baker McKenzie partner Alexandra Minkovich. (Proposed Section 899 Presentation)

• Unfair foreign taxes are broadly defined in the legislation to include digital services taxes, diverted profits taxes, and certain tax rules adopted by countries pursuant to OECD model rules for taxing multinational businesses (“Pillar 2”), as well as taxes that the Treasury Secretary determines are extraterritorial, discriminatory, or intended to be born disproportionately by US persons.

• The legislation would raise the applicable treaty or non-treaty tax rate by 5%/year, up to the maximum statutory tax rate plus 20%.   (WSJ, May 30)

• Countries or regions widely considered targets of the legislation because of their adoption of either digital services taxes or Pillar 2 undertaxed profits rules include the U.K., Canada, the E.U., Australia, and Japan. 

Implications for CRE

• If enacted, the legislation could have implications for U.S. real estate because of its application to sovereign wealth funds, foreign insurance companies, and passive investors that provide an important source of equity investment for large-scale, capital-intensive U.S. real estate and infrastructure projects. It could have a chilling effect on inbound investment decisions.

• According to CBRE, foreign investment in U.S. real estate increased by 40 percent between the second half of 2023 and the second half of 2024. (CBRE, March 2025)

• Chye-Ching Huang with the NYU Tax Law Center recently told the New York Times that the legislation would “create a new front in the U.S. tariff war with its closest economic partners, extending that to taxes and investment.” (New York Times, May 21)

• The provisions in the House bill draw heavily from legislation introduced by House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO). They are estimated to raise $116 billion over 10 years. It is unclear whether they have the full support of key Senators. Also, because they implicate foreign relations and treaty commitments, they could face parliamentary challenges under Senate rules.

At the TPAC meeting this week, Committee Chair Josh Parker (Chairman & CEO, Ancora Group Capital), announced the formation of a working group to analyze the legislation’s impact on real estate and ensure policymakers fully understand the potential unintended consequences of the bill.