New Opportunity Zone Talking Points
In their Real Estate Financing Column, Ezra Dyckman and Aaron Gaynor discuss the final qualified opportunity zone regulations released by the Treasury in January.
February 25, 2020 at 10:54 AM
6 minute read
In December 2018 and June 2019, we shared with you qualified opportunity zone (QOZ) talking points for holiday parties and Fourth of July BBQs. Since June, Treasury has released final QOZ regulations, which were published in January of this year. Here, we present to you updated (non-season–specific) QOZ talking points reflecting these final regulations, which were generally taxpayer favorable.
Investment in QOZs, Generally
In order to make a qualifying investment in a QOZ, an investor generally must "reinvest" capital gain into a special investment vehicle (called a qualified opportunity fund or QOF) within a certain 180-day period. An investor who makes a qualifying investment into a QOF receives up to three benefits: (i) deferral of paying tax on the reinvested gain until as late as December 31, 2026; (ii) after five years, effective reduction of the deferred gain by 10 percent; and (iii) after 10 years, effective permanent exclusion from tax of any additional gain on the sale of the investor's interest in the QOF. (Formerly, there was a fourth benefit: After seven years, effective reduction of the deferred gain by an additional 5 percent. However, this benefit effectively expired on January 1, 2020, as after that date there was less than seven years until December 31, 2026.)
Generally, a QOF is a business entity, organized for the purpose of investing in property located in a QOZ (generally, a designated low-income census tract). At least 90 percent of the assets of a QOF must be (i) QOZ business property (certain tangible property), or (ii) interests in special subsidiaries called QOZ businesses (which hold QOZ business property). Due to certain more favorable rules, almost all QOZ investments use a two-tier structure, with a QOF holding its property through an interest in a QOZ business entity.
New Timing Rules
In general, an investor has 179 days from the date of sale of property giving rise to capital gain to reinvest that gain into a QOF. The investor may also invest the gain on the date of sale, giving the investor a total period of 180 days.
Partnerships (including LLCs classified as partnerships for tax purposes) are eligible to reinvest capital gain. Additionally, under the proposed regulations, generally, investors who are partners in partnerships could reinvest their share of gain that a partnership did not reinvest. Partners could invest during one of two alternative 180-day periods: (i) the same period as the partnership, or (ii) the 180 days beginning on and inclusive of the last day of the partnership's taxable year (generally Dec. 31). The final regulations retained the rules of the proposed regulations and added one additional period for a partner to invest: (iii) the 180 days beginning on and inclusive of the unextended filing deadline for the partnership's tax return (generally March 15). (Analogous rules apply to S corporation shareholders and the beneficiaries of certain non-grantor trusts.)
Example: Adam is a 50% partner in partnership AB (a calendar-year taxpayer). On January 1, 2019, AB sells property and recognizes $100 in gain. As late as September 10, 2020 (the 179th day after AB's return deadline of March 15, 2020), Adam may make a qualifying investment of his $50 share of AB's gain (50% of $100) into a QOF.
In addition to the partnership changes, the final regulations now treat gains from the sale of property used in a trade or business (section 1231 gains) in the same manner as capital gains for timing (and all other) purposes.
The final regulations also clarified or liberalized the timing of reinvestment of gain from an installment sale (each payment begins its own 180-day period), and from the receipt of a capital gains dividend from a REIT or a mutual fund (shareholders may begin the 180-day period on the date of payment or on the last day of the shareholder's taxable year).
Sale of Real Property (Rather Than Entity Interests)
Under the proposed regulations, the 10-year benefit (effective exclusion from tax of all gain from appreciation in the investment) applied only to an investor's sale of its interests in a QOF, or the QOF's sale of property that it held directly. As most QOFs hold property through subsidiary QOZ business entities, this meant that most investors could get the 10-year benefit through a sale of entity interests (either of the QOF or the QOZ business) only.
The final regulations also permit the sale of property by an underlying QOZ business entity to qualify for these purposes. This liberalization will ease the structuring of multi-asset QOFs. However, the final regulations imposed an additional limitation: If the net proceeds from the sale of underlying property are not distributed, a portion of any subsequent sales of property by the QOF or its subsidiary QOZ business entity will not be eligible for the 10-year benefit. This rule was likely put into place to prevent QOFs from locking in capital in order to become vehicles for permanent tax deferral. However, as a practical matter, the net effect of the new rules will generally be helpful for QOFs.
QOF Disqualification Seemingly Limited to Abusive Cases
Under the statute and proposed regulations, it was unclear whether a QOF's failure of the 90% test would merely cause it to incur a penalty (subject to an exception for reasonable cause), or would cause a QOF from qualifying altogether (which would disqualify its investors' tax benefits).
Although they stop short of expressly stating it, the final regulations seem to indicate that non-abusive failures of the 90% test cause only the application of the penalty. This means that, even in its initial year of qualification, a QOF will generally not fail to qualify due to a good faith failure of the 90% test. This is particularly important because, as mentioned above, most QOFs have only one asset: an interest in a QOZ business entity. If the QOZ business fails to qualify, that means that the QOF will have 0% qualifying assets for purposes of the 90% test. However, absent abuse, this means a QOF will only be subject to a penalty, and not disqualification (even if it has 0% qualifying assets).
Conclusion
Continuing the trend of the proposed regulations, the final regulations provide practical interpretations of the law that will facilitate investment into QOZs. These regulations should largely give taxpayers the certainty necessary to proceed with their QOZ investments.
Ezra Dyckman is a partner at Roberts & Holland. Aaron S. Gaynor is an associate at the firm.
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
© 2025 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 AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Tortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 2Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 3Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 4Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 5Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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