Opportunity Zones: Real Estate, Land Development and Other Considerations
Much has been written lately on the Opportunity Zone program. Created in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the program essentially allows the creation of funds to cultivate new businesses, invest capital to expand existing businesses or develop real estate.
January 30, 2019 at 09:04 AM
5 minute read
Much has been written lately on the Opportunity Zone program. Created in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the program essentially allows the creation of funds to cultivate new businesses, invest capital to expand existing businesses or develop real estate. Such benefits include, deferred capital gains, a reduced cost basis for capital gains and tax-free appreciation for investors all in designated economically distressed communities referred to pursuant to the new law as Qualified Opportunity Zones. The idea behind Opportunity Zones is to spur economic activity in places that are currently distressed within an Opportunity Zone.
However, there seems to be the absence of any real estate, land development or environmental cleanup benefits beyond the tax benefits briefly mentioned that is associated with the Opportunity Zone program.
|Background and Initial Investment Considerations
There are 427 Opportunity Zones in Florida including 68 in Miami-Dade County, 30 in Broward County and 35 in Palm Beach County that have been deemed as economically distressed as designated by Gov. Rick Scott. There are a number of tools allowing the developer or investor to search for Qualified Opportunity Zones.
To invest in a Qualified Opportunity Zone, individuals or companies must invest in a Qualified Opportunity Fund including limited liability companies, corporations or partnerships. The fund must then purchase or invest in an existing business, or acquire, develop or invest in land or buildings in an Opportunity Zone. However, a fund cannot simply buy an existing property in an Opportunity Zone—it must make a substantial improvement of an Opportunity Zone property within a certain amount of time of closing on the qualified property to remain eligible for the fully panoply of benefits. The requirement that the property be substantially improved would likely involve land use, development and potentially environmental considerations as part of a buyer's due diligence analysis of the property.
|Real Estate Pricing Negotiations
A seller looking to sell real estate in an Opportunity Zone may find that the tax incentives can make potential buyers' economics and purchase price easier to work out, and may lead to more offers for the property. Additionally another benefit to keep in mind is that if a company located elsewhere needs, for instance, industrial space, it may consider building in an Opportunity Zone through a properly structured fund. Long-term investors with stable cash flow are good candidates for these types of investments.
|Potential Local Economic and Regulatory Benefits
Given the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the ostensible public purpose for revitalizing property and encouraging investment within any of Florida's Opportunity Zones, it may be possible for a developer owning property within an Opportunity Zone to bootstrap the public benefits of the act with local, state or federal economic development benefit programs. One practical course of action is to work with the respective administration(s) having jurisdiction within an Opportunity Zone such as the director of economic development for the availability of grants or other funds. For example, an environmentally contaminated property located within an Opportunity Zone may also be eligible for the economic development benefits associated with Florida's Brownfield Redevelopment Act. Often, properties located within an Opportunity Zone are also potential Brownfield sites which are defined as properties having contamination or the “stigma” of contamination, remain undeveloped. Therefore, potential available economic funds at the various governmental levels should be evaluated to further increase the return on investment for properties located within Opportunity Zones.
Similarly, land use and zoning regulatory incentives may be permissible at the municipal and other levels of government. For example, cities may choose to enter into a development agreement with the city or seek legislation expediting permit review, relaxing certain development requirements, or provide certain value added development rights in connection with a given properties location within an Opportunity Zone.
|Conclusion
Most importantly, as with any investment, the underlying fundamentals of the investment must make sense for the developer or investor and not just from a tax perspective. Threshold issues must first be analyzed including whether it makes sound business sense to hold a property within the Opportunity Zone for the five, seven or 10-plus years the law and regulations known to date require. Further, an evaluation of the risk for a certain property within an Opportunity Zone in the event the asset does not increase in value. Finally, seeking legal and accounting advice to structure the investment properly, as the interplay between the economics and statute can quickly become complicated.
David E. Sacks is a partner at Pathman Lewis in Miami. He practices real estate, land use, zoning, and environmental law. He can be reached 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
- 1Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 2Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 3Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
- 4Delaware Governor Names Magistrate Judge as Next Vice Chancellor
- 5Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
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