QOZs Illustrate How Important Tax Idea Might Bolster Tax Coverage Evaluation – Capital Features Tax

Although Tax Day passed on April 18, 2022, for some taxpayers a

different type of tax deadline is approaching. Many tax attorneys,

like myself, know that June 30, 2022, is the last day on which

certain taxpayers who had capital gains in 2021 can defer paying

tax on those gains until 2026 by investing them in Qualified

Opportunity Funds (QOFs)-investment vehicles used to invest in

Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZs). According to the IRS, the purpose of the QOZ

program is to “spur economic development and job creation in

distressed communities by providing tax benefits to

investors.”

One such tax benefit is that an investor who holds a QOF

investment for 10 years receives a 100% exclusion from federal tax

on appreciation on the investment. That is a 0% effective tax rate

on a potentially unlimited amount of gain. But how does the 0% tax

rate compare to that of a QOZ resident?

Today, there are 8,764 QOZs in the United States. One

of those QOZs is Central Harlem, where 29% of residents are below the federal poverty

level, 77.2% of households do not include children,

and the median household income is $57,720. The federal income tax liability for a

single filer with no children, with income of $57,720, and who takes the standard deduction ($12,550) and, thus, has taxable income of

$45,170, is $5,687. This results in an effective federal

tax rate of 12.59% for a typical resident in Central Harlem.

In the United States, we have a progressive tax system, which

means that as a person’s income increases, so too should their

tax rate. This is consistent with vertical equity-one of the

touchstones of traditional tax policy-which suggests that those who

have more income should be taxed more than those who have less

income.

Because most capital gains are realized by high-income

households, the capital gain requirement of the QOZ program

makes it more likely that QOZ investors are from high-income

households. But, when a QOF investor’s 0% tax rate is compared

to a typical Central Harlem resident’s 12.59% rate, traditional

tax policy suggests that the capital gain requirement has a

regressive effect: it causes high income QOF investors to be taxed

at a lower tax rate than low income residents of the Central Harlem

QOZ.

Traditional tax policy, however, does not shed light on whether

the capital gain requirement disproportionately impacts any

demographic groups. For that, we can look to critical tax theory, a

growing body of scholarship seeking to uncover explicit and

implicit bias in the tax system. According to Anthony Infanti, a

law professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, and

Bridget Crawford, a law professor at Pace University Elisabeth Haub

School of Law, critical tax theorists use various methods of

inquiry, including the interpretation of “social science and

economic data to show how the tax law impacts groups

differently.”

In the United States, while 85% of capital gains are reported by

households with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000, only

7% of capital gains are received by households

with adjusted gross income under $100,000. According to the Institute on Taxation and

Economic Policy, “(b)ecause capital gains overwhelmingly

flow to high-income households, they also tend to flow mostly to

white households.” In Central Harlem, the median household

income is only $57,720 and 77.9% of residents are Black or Hispanic.

According to Monica Wendell and Gabriel Jones, Jr., professors at

the University of Louisville School of Public Health &

Information Science, QOF investors are not likely to reside in

QOZs.

Looking through a critical tax lens, it is unlikely that Black

or Hispanic residents of Central Harlem would have any capital

gains, and it is more likely that white taxpayers who do not reside

in Central Harlem invest in the Central Harlem QOZ. Thus, critical

tax theory suggests that the capital gain requirement is likely to

have a disproportionate negative impact on Black and Hispanic

residents of Central Harlem by creating an implicit structural

barrier that excludes them from the tax benefits of the QOZ

program, while limiting those benefits to outside investors, who

are most likely white.

It is undeniable that QOF investors risk their wealth by

investing in QOZs, which are, by definition, economically

distressed areas. It follows that if no tax incentive is provided

to investors, they would be less likely to invest in QOZs. Proponents of the program argue that it causes

significant investment in QOZs, spurring economic activity, and

creating jobs in those communities. However, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has

warned that the QOZ tax rules do not have any mechanism to

ensure that the benefits of the program are allocated to the

members of QOZ communities.

According to Nancy J. Knauer, Director of the

Law & Policy Program at Temple University Beasley School of

Law, critics of critical tax theory argue that those who apply a

critical tax lens have no reliable data supporting their claims.

Knauer’s response is that such an argument assumes that the

lack of data showing a disproportionate impact of the tax system on

various demographic groups equates to proof that the tax system is

equitable. This debate highlights the need for reliable taxpayer

demographic data, which the IRS does not currently collect.

The Treasury Department has recently announced

its commitment to advancing equity analysis in tax policy by

“examining the tax system through a racial equity lens.”

The Treasury Department has proposed working

with other federal agencies to develop a reliable methodology

utilizing statistical modelling techniques to impute race,

ethnicity, gender, and other demographic characteristics for tax

data. The resulting synthetically modelled data would then be

utilized for tax equity analysis. Thus, synthetic data could pave

the way for meaningful and comprehensive critical tax analysis.

QOZs account for 12% of census tracts in the United States. If

QOZs across the country are like Central Harlem, the capital gain

requirement could have a substantial impact on racial equity

nationwide. Given that the first 10-year holding period is set to

expire in 2028, which will be the first year when the 0% tax rate

applies to QOF investors, the Treasury Department should prioritize

the synthesis of taxpayer demographic data. Those data should

measure the benefits of the QOZ program allocated among QOF

investors and QOZ residents to determine whether the capital gain

requirement advances racial equity.

The capital gain requirement highlights one instance where

traditional tax policy is insufficient to show whether the tax

system disproportionately impacts groups of taxpayers. Traditional

tax policy should not be discarded, but it can be enhanced by

critical tax theory. By adding an additional dimension-taxpayer

demographics-to traditional tax policy analysis, a critical tax

lens could help us see what traditional tax policy does not.

Originally published by Yale Journal on Regulation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general

guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought

about your specific circumstances.

FAQ not present/live