Treasury and IRS Provide Clarity on Valuable Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive
As investors sell their real estate or other assets, they are searching for tax-efficient strategies to redeploy their capital. On Oct. 19, proposed regulations and other guidance were released concerning the tax incentive for investing in “Opportunity Zones,” which could be an advantageous approach for many taxpayers.
November 12, 2018 at 09:04 AM
5 minute read
As investors sell their real estate or other assets, they are searching for tax-efficient strategies to redeploy their capital. On Oct. 19, proposed regulations and other guidance were released concerning the tax incentive for investing in “Opportunity Zones,” which could be an advantageous approach for many taxpayers.
|Background
Internal Revenue Code Section 1400Z-2, which was enacted as part of the 2017 tax legislation, provides certain incentives for capital gains invested in Opportunity Zones, designated economically-distressed communities. First, capital gains invested in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) that invest in qualified opportunity zone property are deferred until the earlier of Dec. 31, 2026, or the date the investment is sold or exchanged. In addition, the basis of any investment is increased by 10 percent of the amount of gain deferred if the investment is held for five years and an additional 5 percent for any investments held for seven years.
If an investment is held for 10 years, any post-investment capital gains realized from the investment in the QOF are tax exempt (the Ten Year Incentive). An entity will only qualify as a QOF if at least 90 percent of its assets are held in qualified opportunity zone property, such as qualified opportunity zone business property or stock or partnership interests in a qualified opportunity zone business.
After Section 1400Z-2 was enacted, potential investors had many questions concerning the mechanics and implementation of its various provisions. In order to provide further clarity, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service released proposed regulations and other guidance.
|Eligible Investors in QOFs
In general, eligible taxpayers who can invest in QOFs include individuals, C corporations, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, and estates. The proposed regulations also provide that if a partnership does not elect to invest in a QOF, then a partner may elect on its own to be an investor in a QOF. This provision also applies for other pass-through entities, such as S corporations, estates, and trusts.
|How to Elect Deferral
In general, taxpayers have 180 days from the date a capital gain would be recognized to make an investment in a QOF. Under certain circumstances, a partner has 180 days from the end of a partnership's taxable year to invest in a QOF. The released guidance provides that such deferral election will be made on Form 8949, “Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets.”
|Qualification Period for the Ten Year Incentive
Prior to the issuance of the proposed regulations, it was unclear if a taxpayer would qualify for the Ten Year Incentive after the Opportunity Zone designation expires on Dec. 31, 2028. The proposed regulations provide that a taxpayer may qualify for the Ten Year Incentive provided that the taxpayer disposes of the interest in a QOF by Dec. 31, 2047, which is 20.5 years after the latest date that an eligible taxpayer may make a qualifying investment in a QOF. This should provide potential investors with comfort that they have flexibility to qualify for the Ten Year Incentive in the future.
|Working Capital of a Qualified Opportunity Zone Business
The proposed regulations provide a safe harbor for working capital (e.g., cash, cash equivalents, or certain debt instruments) held by a qualified opportunity zone business to qualify as qualified opportunity zone property so long as the working capital is held for no more than 31 months and the qualified opportunity zone business complies with certain documentation and usage requirements. In essence, the safe harbor for working capital allows a qualified opportunity zone business to hold cash for 31 months prior to the acquisition, construction, or substantial improvement of property provided that the documentation and usage requirements prescribed by the proposed regulations are satisfied.
|Land and the Substantial Improvement of Property
Tangible property qualifies as qualified opportunity zone business property only if the original use of such property commences with the QOF or the QOF substantially improves the property. Property is treated as substantially improved only if additions to the basis of such property during any 30-month period beginning after the acquisition of the property exceed an amount equal to the adjusted basis of such property. For purposes of this substantial improvement requirement, the proposed regulations and Revenue Ruling 2018-29 provide that the basis attributable to land is not included in the calculation. In other words, a QOF must only improve a building and not the underlying land.
Logan E. Gans, is an attorney in the Miami office of Shutts & Bowen where he is a member of the tax and international law practice group. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
- 2What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 3Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 4Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 5Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250