Photo of Sean Webb

Sean is an associate in the Tax Department. He earned his J.D. from UCLA School of Law and his LL.M. from NYU School of Law, where he served as a graduate editor for the Tax Law Review.

Prior to law school, Sean lived and worked in Shanghai, China, where he learned Mandarin. He has served as a translator for Stanford Law School’s China Guiding Cases Project. He received his B.A. from McGill University.

Today, March 23, 2020, for the second time the Senate defeated a procedural motion on a third stimulus bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) (H.R. 748).  The vote was 49 in favor and 46 opposed (yesterday, the vote was 47 to 47).  Sixty votes were

Recently, several of the presidential candidates and other prominent Democrats have suggested a number of different tax policy proposals, including wealth taxes, mark-to-market taxation, a VAT, additional taxes, increased income tax rates, and increased gift and estate taxes. This chart illustrates the various proposals, and this blog summarizes them.[1]

This blog was updated on February 27, 2020.[2]

Wealth Taxes Mark-to-Market Tax VAT Increased Taxes Financial Transaction Tax Additional Taxes Increased Gift & Estate Tax Repeal of stepped-up basis Death as a Realization Event
Bernie Sanders Cory Booker Andrew Yang Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Beto O’Rourke (War Tax) Julián Castro Romney and Bennet Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren Pete Buttigieg Mike Bloomberg Kamala Harris Bernie Sanders (CEO Pay Tax) Bernie Sanders Mike Bloomberg
Julián Castro

Cory Booker

Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth Warren (Social Security Tax and Lobbying Tax)
Alexandria   Ocasio-Cortez Pete Buttigieg Andrew Yang
Elizabeth Warren Amy Klobuchar
Ron Wyden Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ron Wyden
Andrew Yang

On December 19, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued final regulations (the “Final Regulations”) under section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code[1] regarding the opportunity zone program, which was enacted as part of the law commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”.[2] The opportunity zone program is designed to encourage investment in distressed communities designated as “qualified opportunity zones” (“opportunity zones”) by providing tax incentives to invest in “qualified opportunity funds” (“QOFs”) that, in turn, invest directly or indirectly in the opportunity zones.

The opportunity zone statute left many uncertainties regarding the fundamental operations of the opportunity zone program. The IRS and Treasury issued two sets of proposed regulations under section 1400Z-2 in October 2018 and April 2019 (the “Proposed Regulations”). The Proposed Regulations were discussed in two of our earlier blog posts, found here and here. The Final Regulations address the many comments received in response to the Proposed Regulations and retain the basic approach and structure set forth in the Proposed Regulations, but include clarifications and modifications to the Proposed Regulations. The Final Regulations are generally taxpayer-favorable, and incorporate many of the provisions requested by commentators. However, there are certain provisions that are worse for taxpayers than under the Proposed Regulations.

The Final Regulations will be effective on March 13, 2020, and are generally applicable to taxable years beginning after that date. For the portion of a taxpayer’s first taxable year ending after December 21, 2017 that began on December 22, 2017, and for taxable years beginning after December 21, 2017 and on or before March 13, 2020, taxpayers and QOFs generally may choose to apply the Final Regulations or the Proposed Regulations, so long as, in each case, they are applied consistently and in their entirety.

This blog summarizes some of the important aspects of the Final Regulations. It assumes familiarity with the opportunity zone program.

Summary

This section lists some of the most important changes in the Final Regulations.

  •  All gain on the sale of a QOF interest or underlying assets after 10 years is excluded, other than gain from ordinary course sales of inventory. The Proposed Regulations provided that if a taxpayer held an interest in a QOF for at least 10 years, then upon a sale of the QOF, all gain could be excluded, including any gain attributable to depreciation recapture or ordinary income assets. The Proposed Regulations also permitted an investor that held a qualifying interest in a QOF partnership or S corporation for at least 10 years to elect to exclude capital gains (but not other gains) realized by the QOF partnership or S corporation on the sale of underlying qualified opportunity zone property. The Final Regulations very helpfully provide that an investor that has held a qualifying interest in a QOF for at least 10 years may elect to exclude all gain realized upon its sale of an interest in a QOF as well as all gain realized upon the sale of assets by the QOF or a lower-tier partnership or S corporation QOZB, except to the extent the gain arises from the sale of inventory in the ordinary course of business.
  • Eligible gain includes gross section 1231 gain, and not net section 1231 gain. Section 1231 gains and losses generally arise when a taxpayer disposes of depreciable or real property that is used in the taxpayer’s trade or business and held for more than one year. The portion of any section 1231 gain that reflects accelerated appreciation is “recaptured” under sections 1245 or 1250 and is treated as ordinary income. If, at the end of the taxable year, the taxpayer has net section 1231 gains, then all section 1231 gains and losses are treated as long-term capital gains and losses. Alternatively, if, at the end of the taxable year, the taxpayer’s section 1231 losses equal or exceed its section 1231 gains, then all of the taxpayer’s section 1231 gains and losses are treated as ordinary income and losses. The Proposed Regulations provided that only net section 1231 gain would be eligible for deferral under section 1400Z2-(a)(1) (i.e., only section 1231 gain that would be characterized as long-term capital gain after the netting process had been completed). The Final Regulations very helpfully provide that eligible gains include gross section 1231 gains (other than section 1231 gain that is recaptured and treated as ordinary income under sections 1245 or 1250) unreduced by section 1231 losses.
  • New 62-month working capital safe harbor. The Proposed Regulations included a working capital safe harbor that permitted a QOZB that acquires, constructs, and/or substantially rehabilitates tangible business property to treat cash, cash equivalents and debt instruments with a term of 18 months or less as a reasonable amount of working capital for a period of up to 31 months if certain requirements are satisfied. The Final Regulations provide that tangible property may benefit from an additional 31-month safe harbor period, for a maximum of 62 months, in the form of either overlapping or sequential applications of the working capital safe harbor. To qualify for the 62-month safe harbor, the business must receive multiple non-de minimis cash infusions during each 31-month safe harbor period, and the subsequence cash infusion must form an integral part of the plan covered by the first working capital safe harbor.
  • Triple-net-lease. The Final Regulations contain an example concluding that a QOZB that owns a three-story mixed-use building, and (i) leases one floor of the building under a triple-net-lease, (ii) leases the other two floors under leases that are not triple-net-leases, and (iii) has employees with offices located in the building who meaningfully participate in the management and operations of building, is engaged in an active trade or business with respect to the entire leased building solely for purposes of the opportunity zone trade or business requirement. While this example is helpful because it confirms that a portion of an active trade or business may consist of a triple-net-lease, it leaves unanswered what level of activity is necessary for a real property rental business to qualify as a trade or business for purposes of the opportunity zone rules.
  • Asset aggregation approach for determining substantial improvement. In order for non-original use tangible property to be treated as zone business property, it must be “substantially improved”, which generally requires an original use investment of an amount at least equal to the property’s purchase price. For purposes of determining whether non-original use tangible property purchased by a QOZB has been substantially improved, the Final Regulations permit certain original use assets used in the same trade or business as the non-original use property and that improve the functionality of the non-original use property, to be counted for purposes of the substantial improvement test.  For example, a QOF that intends to substantially improve a hotel may now count the cost of mattresses, linens, furniture, and electronic equipment for purposes of the substantial improvement test.
  • Partnership interests valued at fair market value for purposes of the 90% test. For purposes of the 90% test, the Final Regulations require an asset that has a tax basis not based on cost, such as a partnership interest or other intangible asset, to be valued at its fair market value (rather than the unadjusted cost basis).  Accordingly, the fair market value of a carried interest or even a QOZB partnership must be re-determined at each semi-annual testing date.
  • Sin Businesses. The Final Regulations prohibit a QOZB from leasing more than a de minimis amount of its property to a sin business, but also provide that de minimis amounts of gross income (i.e., less than 5% of gross income) attributable to a sin business will not cause the business to fail to be a QOZB (e.g., a hotel with a spa that offers massage services).
  •  Tangible property that ceases to be zone business property.  The statute contains a special rule pursuant to which tangible property that ceases to be zone business property will nonetheless continue to be treated as such for the lesser of: (1) five years after the date such property ceases to be qualified as zone business property; and (2) the date on which the tangible property is no longer held by the zone business. The Final Regulations prohibit a QOZB from relying on this rule unless the zone business property was used by a QOZB in a QOZ for at least two years not counting any period during which the property was being substantially improved or covered by the working capital safe harbor.
  • Expanded anti-abuse rule. The Proposed Regulations included a general anti-abuse rule under which the IRS has broad discretion to disregard or recharacterize any transaction if, based on the facts and circumstances, a significant purpose of the transaction is to achieve tax results inconsistent with the purposes of section 1400Z-2. However, the Proposed Regulations did not explain the purposes of section 1400Z-2. The Final Regulations state that the purposes of section 1400Z-2 are (i) to provide specified tax benefits to owners of QOFs to encourage the making of longer-term investments, through QOFs and QOZBs, of new capital in one or more opportunity zones and (ii) to increase the economic growth of opportunity zones, and include seven new examples illustrating the application of the anti-abuse rule. These examples demonstrate that acquiring land with a significant purpose of selling it at a profit is abusive

On October 2, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued Revenue Produce 2019-40 (the “Revenue Procedure”) and proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) that provide guidance on issues that have arisen as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4) by the tax reform act of 2017.[1] The repeal of section 958(b)(4) was intended to prevent certain taxpayers from “de-controlling” their controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs”) and avoid paying current tax on earnings of those CFCs. However, the repeal has inadvertently caused a number of foreign corporations to be treated as CFCs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, U.S. persons who directly or indirectly own between 10% and 50% of the voting stock or value of foreign corporations that are now treated as CFCs are subject to tax on income (“subpart F income”) and 951A (globally intangible low-taxed income, or “GILTI”). The repeal has had other unintended consequences. For example, if a foreign corporation receives U.S.-source interest from a related person, the repeal of section 958(b)(4) may cause the interest to be subject to U.S. withholding tax (i.e., the interest would fail to qualify for the “portfolio interest exemption”).[2]

The Proposed Regulations “turn off” certain special rules that arise solely as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4). However, the Proposed Regulations do not prevent foreign corporations from being treated as CFCs as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4), do not limit the subpart F or GILTI income required to be reported as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4), and do not reinstate the portfolio interest exemption for foreign corporations affected by the repeal of section 958(b)(4).

The Revenue Procedure provides safe harbors for certain U.S. persons to determine whether they own stock in a CFC and to use alternative information to determine their taxable income with respect to foreign corporations that are CFCs solely as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4) if they are unable to obtain information to report these amounts with more accuracy.

The Proposed Regulations are generally proposed to apply on or after October 1, 2019. However, a taxpayer may rely on the Proposed Regulations for taxable years prior to the date they are finalized. The Revenue Procedure is effective for the last taxable year of a foreign corporation beginning before January 1, 2019.

Introduction

On April 17, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued a second set of proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under section 1400Z-2 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) regarding the qualified opportunity zone program, which was enacted as part of the law commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (“TCJA”).[1]

The Proposed Regulations are very taxpayer friendly, and address some, but not all, of the questions that were left unanswered by the first set of proposed regulations issued in October 2018 (the “Initial Proposed Regulations”). The Initial Proposed Regulations were discussed here.

The Proposed Regulations generally are proposed to be effective on or after the date of the publication of final regulations. Nevertheless, taxpayers and qualified opportunity funds (“QOFs”) may generally rely on the Proposed Regulations, so long as the taxpayer and/or the QOF applies the Proposed Regulations consistently and in their entirety. However, taxpayers may not rely on the rules that permit a QOF partnership, S corporation, or REIT whose owners have held their QOF interests for at least 10 years to sell assets without its owners recognizing capital gains on the sale, until the Proposed Regulations are finalized.

Some states conform to federal tax law with respect to QOFs (and grant equivalent tax benefits); others do not and tax gains that would otherwise be deferred, reduced or eliminated under the opportunity zone program.

This blog summarizes some of the important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. It assumes familiarity with the opportunity zone program. For background, see our prior blog post.

I.                   Introduction.

On March 4, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) regarding the deduction for “foreign-derived intangible income” (“FDII”) under section 250 of the Internal Revenue Code.[1] Section 250 was enacted in 2017 as part of the tax reform act.[2] Very generally, section 250 provides domestic corporations with a reduced effective 13.125% tax rate on FDII, which is a formulary proxy for a domestic corporation’s intangible income attributable to foreign sales and services.[3] The reduced tax rate for FDII is intended to encourage U.S. multinationals to retain intellectual property in the United States rather than transfer it to a foreign subsidiary where it could generate global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”), which is taxable at a 10.5% rate. The Proposed Regulations also would permit individuals who make a section 962 election with respect to their controlled foreign corporation (“CFCs”) to benefit from the reduced 13.125% rate on the GILTI earned by those CFCs.

The Proposed Regulations are generally effective for taxable years ending on or after March 4, 2019.

This post provides both background to and a summary of some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact.

On December 20, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released proposed “anti-hybrid” regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under sections 267A, 245A(e), and 1503(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.[1] Sections 267A and 245A(e) were enacted in 2017 as part of the tax reform act.[2] Very generally, these sections deny U.S. tax deductions associated with a financial instrument, transaction, or entity that is treated differently under the tax laws of the United States and the tax laws of another country. Such an instrument, transaction, or entity is referred to as a “hybrid”; and sections 267A and 245A(e) are referred to as “anti-hybrid” provisions. Hybrids, by exploiting the differences between tax laws, can be used to claim tax benefits in multiple countries or achieve “double nontaxation”.

The Proposed Regulations will generally be retroactively effective from January 1, 2018 if they are finalized by June 22, 2019.[3] If they are not finalized by that date, then they will be effective as of December 20, 2018. The deadline for comments on the Proposed Regulations is February 26, 2019.[4]

This post provides both a summary and detailed explanation of some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact. 

On December 13, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) with respect to the “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (the “BEAT”) under section 59A of the Internal Revenue Code.[1]

The BEAT was enacted in 2017 as part of the tax reform act.[2] The BEAT is an additional tax that has the effect of a minimum tax on certain large U.S. corporations that make deductible payments to foreign related parties. The BEAT is designed to prevent these U.S. corporations from using deductible payments to reduce (or “base erode”) their corporate tax liability.

The Proposed Regulations clarify which taxpayers are subject to the BEAT and how the BEAT rules apply. The Proposed Regulations are generally effective for taxable years after December 31, 2017, and a taxpayer may rely on them before they are finalized so long as the taxpayer applies them consistently for all taxable years before they are finalized.

This post provides background and summarizes some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact.

On November 26, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under section 163(j) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).[1]  Section 163(j) limits the deductibility of net business interest expense to 30% of “adjusted taxable income” plus “floor plan financing interest expense” for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

The Proposed Regulations generally apply to taxable years ending after the date the Proposed Regulations are published as final regulations. However, taxpayers may elect to apply the Proposed Regulations retroactively to a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 so long as the taxpayer and any related parties consistently apply the Proposed Regulations to those taxable years.

This post provides background and a general summary of some of the most important aspects of the Proposed Regulations. For more information, please contact any of the Proskauer tax lawyers listed on this post or your regular Proskauer contact.  Click to read more about the Proposed Regulations.