Opportunity Zone Benefit for Investors: Timing Is Key
The Opportunity Zones incentive was created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide.
October 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
The Opportunity Zones incentive was created by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage long-term investments in low-income urban and rural communities nationwide. The initiative operates to encourage economic growth by providing tax benefits to investors thus giving them incentive to re-invest their unrealized capital gains into dedicated qualified opportunity funds (QOF). First, investors can defer tax on any prior gains invested in a QOF until the earlier of the date on which the investment in a QOF is sold or exchanged, or Dec. 31, 2026. A QOF is an investment vehicle set up as a corporation or a partnership for the purposes of investing in an eligible property located in an Opportunity Zone. If the QOF investment is held for longer than five years, there is a 10% exclusion of the deferred gain. If the investment is held for more than seven years, there is a 15% exclusion. Furthermore, if the investor retains the investment in the Opportunity Fund for at least 10 years, the investor is eligible for an increase in the basis of the QOF investment equal to its fair market value on the date that the QOF is sold or exchanged. Significantly, one does not have to reside, work or own a business in the Opportunity Zone to qualify for this tax advantage. To qualify, one must only invest in a recognized gain in a QOF and elect to defer on that gain.
Opportunity zones include a wide array of real estate sectors, including multifamily and affordable housing, industrial developments and mixed-use developments, which include hospitality and retail. Eligible investments are restricted to new developments and capital-intensive renovations, including property repurposing or rehabilitations, ground-up developments, business headquarter expansions and public/private partnerships.
At the present time, there are 8,700 tracts designated as Opportunity Zones, including 427 tracts in Florida, 68 in Miami-Dade and the entirety of Puerto Rico. Florida is in an especially favorable position to benefit from Opportunity Zone investment. In particular, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale and Miami all appear to be ready to take advantage of this unique investment opportunity. These are all areas where growing populations support strong economic and real estate fundamentals. When combined with the lack of state income taxes in Florida, the dynamics in these markets create an extremely favorable environment for development and investment.
Investors in Florida should retain qualified legal counsel to ensure they are compliant with the rules and regulations and that they receive the full tax benefits. When determining whether or not to invest in an Opportunity Zone, timing is essential. Investors should seek out projects that already have regulatory approval in place. This will not only make the process proceed more expeditiously but will also minimize regulatory risk. Finally, investors should be aware that while all Opportunity Zones are located in economically distressed areas, not all "distress" is the same. In making their decisions, investors should look for areas with strong job, income and population growth and commercial real estate growth.
Real estate attorney Celena R. Nash practices with Law Offices of Celena R. Nash in Coral Springs.
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
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