Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New Development Projects: The Reports of Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated

By Michael R. Leighton
September 01, 2018

Politics aside, various regions and industries throughout the country were certain to be impacted differently by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Jobs Act). Of the numerous provisions of the Jobs Act, perhaps the most publicized was the reduction in tax rates. Most significantly the corporate tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%.

While many groups applauded the cut, the shopping center industry had immediate reasons to be concerned. Numerous shopping center developers use a “layer-cake” of financing, including state and federal tax incentives to reduce the costs of debt and equity financing. The industry correctly saw that the market value of the credits would drop once the Jobs Act become effective. Such tax cut could undoubtedly impact the ability of developers to raise equity, certainly for new projects not yet placed in service.

Opportunity Zones

Perhaps intentionally, Congress added a new, and initially little noticed, program by which the shopping center industry could find a supplemental source of equity. Known popularly as “Opportunity Zones,” the Jobs Act authorized each state to designate census tracts within distressed communities where the median family income does not exceed 80% of state median income or which have at least 20% poverty rate. Presumably, there will be a great deal of overlap among Opportunity Zones and neighborhoods where redevelopment projects can be undertaken with various state and municipal tax incentives.

The statutory provisions creating the program contain the following key components:

  1. The gain from the sale of any type of asset can be invested in the opportunity fund, which is extremely less restrictive than the real estate oriented “like-kind” exchanges;
  2. A taxpayer can defer capital gain until Dec. 31, 2026 (when the gain must be realized), if the gain is invested in a qualified fund investing in an Opportunity Zone;
  3. If the investment is held for five years, 10% of the deferred gain from the original sale will be forgiven, and if held for seven years, 15% of the gain will be forgiven;
  4. If the new investment is held in the qualified fund for at least ten years, the taxpayer will be entitled to adjust the basis thereof to its fair market value at the time of sale, possibly eliminating all capital gain on the new investment; and
  5. The process to certify a qualified fund may consist of merely a self-certification form attached to the funds' tax return.

Obviously, the benefits from such a statute come with restrictions and obligations. The first is that the investment must be in a business in an Opportunity Zone. The Zones have been selected by each state and are being certified by the United States Treasury Department. The additional key requirements are the following:

  1. The investment must be with a non-affiliate (defined to be an entity which is at least 80% owned by others);
  2. The proceeds to be reinvested must be from a transaction that takes place prior to Dec. 31, 2026;
  3. The reinvestment of the proceeds must occur within 180 days of the transaction generating the gain;
  4. A qualified opportunity fund can be a corporation or partnership which is in a business based in the Zone which was acquired after Dec. 31, 2017; and
  5. The qualified fund must have at least 90% of its assets invested in qualified opportunity zone property.

In addition, there are certain other requirements of a more detailed nature, and benefits may be lost for failure to comply with the requirements. Furthermore, permitted projects exclude golf courses; country clubs; massage, hot tub or sun tan facilities; or gambling facilities.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.