New IRS Guidance to Tax Provision Means Big Breaks to Real Estate, Business Investors
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added a new tax provision to the Internal Revenue Code, Section 1400Z-2, which aims to provide big capital gains tax breaks to real estate and business investors who make investments in certain economically underdeveloped areas.
November 12, 2018 at 12:21 PM
7 minute read
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added a new tax provision to the Internal Revenue Code, Section 1400Z-2, which aims to provide big capital gains tax breaks to real estate and business investors who make investments in certain economically underdeveloped areas. To be entitled to the capital gains tax break, investors are required to invest proceeds that would be subject to capital gains tax, such as those from the sale of a business or stock, and timely invest them in a Qualified Opportunity Fund (QO Fund).
|What Are the Potential Tax Breaks?
Section 1400Z-2 offers three major tax breaks to investors:
- A temporary deferral (up to eight years) of the capital gains tax that would have been due on the sale proceeds which are invested in the QO Fund;
- A 10 percent basis step-up of the investment in a QO Fund after five years and an additional step-up of 5 percent after seven years for a total basis step-up of 15 percent of the original investment amount; and
- A permanent exclusion of the accrued gain from the sale of the QO Fund investment if such investment is held for ten years. This permanent exclusion only applies to the gains accrued after the investment in the QO Fund.
What Is a Qualified Opportunity Fund?
A QO Fund is generally an investment vehicle which is organized as either a corporation or a partnership for the purpose of investing in Qualified Opportunity Zone Property (QOZ Property), and which holds at least 90 percent of its assets in QOZ Property. QOZ Property includes certain qualified corporate stock, partnership or LLC interests and business property.
A QO Fund may invest directly in qualified property (i.e., Qualified Opportunity Zone Business Property) or invest indirectly through a qualified corporation or partnership. If the QO Fund invests indirectly through a qualified corporation, partnership, or LLC, the underlying trade or business must own property substantially all of which is Qualified Opportunity Zone Business Property (QOZ Business Property).
QOZ Business Property is tangible property used in a trade or business, acquired from an unrelated party after Dec. 31, 2017, and used in the Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ). In addition, the entity must either be the original user of that property or substantially improve that property.
Approximately 8,700 different economically underdeveloped areas have been designated as a QOZ throughout the United States. A list of the designated QOZ may be found at Notice 2018-48.
|What New Guidance Has the IRS Provided?
This tax provision has already spurred several prominent investors and hedge funds to form QO Funds and invest in QOZ Property. However, since Section 1400Z-2 is a relatively new addition to the Internal Revenue Code, many investors have been hesitant to act due to the lack of guidance and uncertainty in the area. Investors, among other concerns, have been worried about the “substantial improvement” requirement which requires the QO Fund to invest 100 percent of the cost of the acquired property in the renovation and/or improvement of such property.
On Oct. 19, the IRS issued Proposed Regulations and Revenue Ruling 2018-29 which provides some guidance to Section 1400Z-2. However, these Proposed Regulations and Revenue Ruling have not provided all the guidance investors and their tax practitioners have called for. More detailed regulations are already expected to be issued later this year.
Nonetheless, these proposed regulations and revenue ruling do provide some clarification. For example, the revenue ruling clarified that the value of the land is excluded from the determination of whether substantial improvement is made to the acquired property. For example, if a QO Fund were to purchase an apartment building and land for $1.5 million, with the building separately valued at $500,000, the QO Fund would be required to spend only $500,000 on renovations (the value of the building and not the entire purchase price) to satisfy the substantial improvement requirement. Since land is usually a significant cost in a project, this clarification by the IRS will allow for more investors to take advantage of these capital gains tax breaks and boost capital investment in economically distressed areas.
|How Do the Tax Breaks Work?
The three major tax breaks outlined above is best explained through an illustration.
Facts and Assumptions
Assume in 2018 an investor sells stock for $35 million which has a $20 million tax basis. $15 million of the proceeds would be subject to capital gain tax. However, the investor timely invests the $15 million of capital gain in a QO Fund to defer the recognition of that capital gain. The investor will hold his QO Fund investment through Dec. 31, 2026 and anticipates selling his investment in 2028 (after 10 years) for $25 million.
Temporary Deferral of Capital Gain
Under the new tax section, the investor is entitled to temporarily defer the $15 million of capital gain until the earlier of: the sale (or exchange) of the QO Fund investment; or Dec. 31, 2026. Therefore, the investor would report $0 of capital gain on his 2018 tax return.
Basis Step-Up at Year Five and Year Seven
In year seven (i.e., 2025) the investor's basis in the QO Fund will increase by 15 percent (or $2.25 million). As a result of this 15 percent basis step-up, on Dec. 31, 2026 the investor would recognize a capital gain from his initial stock sale of only $12.75 million rather than the original $15 million of capital gain. If the investor only holds his QO Fund investment for five years, then the basis of the QO Fund investment would increase by only 10 percent (or $1.5 million).
Permanent Income Exclusion
Since the investor expects to hold his investment in the QO Fund for ten years (until 2028), he will be entitled to a permanent income exclusion. In 2028 after holding his investment for 10 years, the investor will sell his QO Fund investment for $25 million. Upon the sale, the investor would have been required to recognize $10 million of capital gain. However, the investor will be required to recognize zero dollars from the sale of the QO Fund because the accrued value of the investment is permanently excluded from income under Section 1400Z-2.
In light of these big capital gains tax breaks, real estate and business investors have been eager to participate in QO Fund and invest in QOZ, but their enthusiasm has been dampened by the lack of guidance and uncertainty in this area. It is anticipated that $100 billion in private capital will ultimately be invested in QOZ. To ensure this level of investment, the IRS has scrambled to provide investors with the comfort they need to take the plunge and make significant investments in economically underdeveloped areas. These new proposed regulations are a step in the right direction.
Pauline Markey, a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, focuses her practice on U.S. federal income tax including corporate and partnership tax, tax-exempt entities, tax controversy, and executive compensation.
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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
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