CARES Act Provisions May Benefit Real Estate Owners
On March 27, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The Act includes many provisions aimed at mitigating the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak, such as cash rebates to individuals and loans and tax credits to businesses. However, the Act also contains several modifications and technical corrections to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that could significantly benefit real estate owners.
April 21, 2020 at 11:38 AM
5 minute read
On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The Act includes many provisions aimed at mitigating the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak, such as cash rebates to individuals and loans and tax credits to businesses. However, the Act also contains several modifications and technical corrections to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that could significantly benefit real estate owners.
Background
Many rental properties generate losses for federal income tax purposes. Prior to 2018, as long as an individual owner of rental real estate was treated as a real estate professional for purposes of the passive loss limitations, the owner was free to use such losses to shelter portfolio income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains. However, as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress enacted Section 461(l) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 461(l) generally provided that, for years 2018 through 2025, deductions from trades or businesses could only be used to offset (1) income attributable to trades or businesses and (2) $250,000 of other income for single taxpayers and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly (subject to annual inflation adjustments). Any deductions in excess of these limitations (so-called "excess business losses") were disallowed and carried over to the following year. Section 461(l) did not apply to C corporations.
In addition to the loss limitations of Section 461(l), if a taxpayer had a net operating loss (NOL) that arose in 2018 or later, the NOL could not be carried back to prior years. The NOL could be carried forward to future years, but could only offset up to 80% of the taxpayer's taxable income in a future year.
Separately, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a new category of depreciable property called "qualified improvement property," which was generally defined to include most interior improvements to an existing nonresidential building. Congress intended for qualified improvement property to be generally depreciable over a 15-year period and eligible for 100% bonus depreciation through 2022 (which would phase out from 2023 through 2026). However, due to a drafting error, the statute had actually provided that this type of property was depreciable over 39 years and was not eligible for bonus depreciation.
The CARES Act
The CARES Act contained significant changes to these provisions. The Act repealed the loss limitations of Section 461(l) for the years 2018 through 2020. Any taxpayers that were subject to these limitations may amend previously filed returns to claim the benefit of these losses. In addition, although the loss limitations of Section 461(l) continue to apply to years 2021 through 2026, the Act clarifies that any excess business loss that is disallowed under Section 461(l) for a given year will become an NOL carryforward in subsequent years that is no longer subject to Section 461(l). This results in the bizarre outcome that an excess business loss cannot offset portfolio income for the year in which it was incurred, but can offset portfolio income in subsequent years. Although this may result in timing issues for some taxpayers, this is a much more taxpayer-favorable rule than some interpretations of prior law.
The CARES Act also significantly changed the NOL carryback and carryforward provisions. The Act permits an NOL arising in 2018, 2019, or 2020 to be carried back up to five years and permits NOLs carried forward to 2019 or 2020 to offset 100% of taxable income rather than 80% of taxable income. Taxpayers may file amended returns to take advantage of these provisions. The five-year carryback is particularly advantageous to taxpayers because tax rates were higher than current rates in years prior to 2018.
In addition, the CARES Act retroactively fixed the drafting error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with respect to qualified improvement property. Qualified improvement property is now generally depreciable over 15 years, and now qualifies for 100% bonus depreciation through 2022 (followed by a phase out of bonus depreciation for years 2023 through 2026). This is a major benefit to real estate owners given that qualified improvement property can encompass many real estate improvements that otherwise would have had to have been depreciated over 39 years.
However, if a taxpayer that is in a real estate business previously made an election not to apply the new interest deduction limitations of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, then the taxpayer must depreciate this type of property over 20 years rather than 15 years, and the property is not eligible for bonus depreciation. As some taxpayers made these elections on prior tax returns before this statutory change, the IRS recently issued guidance effectively allowing such taxpayers to retroactively revoke these elections.
Conclusion
Because the operation of many rental properties results in losses for income tax purposes, the provisions of the CARES Act that relaxed the limitations on the use of losses could result in significant benefits to rental property owners and may even result in refunds for prior years. Moreover, the qualified improvement property provisions may result in much larger depreciation deductions to taxpayers that have recently made interior improvements to nonresidential properties. As always, taxpayers will need to plan carefully to ensure that they obtain the maximum benefit of these provisions.
Ezra Dyckman is a partner at Roberts & Holland. Charles S. Nelson 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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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