Thread: New Economic Study Details How Proposed Tax Increase of ... - PR

New Economic Study Details How Proposed Tax Increase of ...
PR Newswire (press release), NY - 11 minutes ago
"Commercial Real Estate and Changing the Tax Treatment of Carried Interest," was prepared for The Roundtable (http://www.rer.org) by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin ...



More...

Not to add fuel to the fire regarding forum challenges...but the "more" button on the news story does not work for me. It goes to a blank page.

I'm running Safari.

Comment on the article, because I did read it last night. It's very interesting. The AMT fix is turning into a debacle of major proportions. Did anyone read the House Ways and Means bill that passed yesterday?

It takes away long-term capital gains treatment!!! This bill is trying to fix AMT by creating a heavier tax burden for investors and business owners.

Un-freaking-real...

I need an example to understand this...

Let's say I put together a deal, bring partners to finance it and I don't put any money and I will be the general partner.... we will split profits 50/50 with the money partners.

We sell after a couple of years and make, let's say, 1M in profit. 500K is for the partners, 500K for me as agreed. The partners will pay 75K in taxes, I will 150K.

Is this correct?

Wow - not good news. So, let me make sure I have this right..... this means that any company/partnership, which owns RE will pay a 35% tax on gains, regardless of time held (upon sale)?

Diane, can you think of any way around this or, at least, to lessen the blow? Are these things typically temporary?

It's just the House's bill right now. It's not certain if the Senate will pass it and then if it does pass, I'm pretty sure Bush would not sign it (he hasn't stated yet though). That would then kick back to try to get a 2/3 majority.

Which brings us to Rangel's "Mother of all Tax Bills" (that's what he calls it) - it calls for many things, including raising the highest tax rate from 35% to 48%! It would be the highest ever tax jump in US history.

I have so many opinions on all this, depending on which hat I have on: as an investor/business owner - this sucks, as a US citizen - this sucks, and as a CPA/Tax Strategist - this rocks. I will have more clients than I know what to do with because there are ALWAYS loopholes - it's just a matter of having enough time to position the deals and your business to take advantage of every tax benefit out there.

Up until 3 years ago, I always said: If you're paying too much in taxes (or ANYTHING in taxes if you don't want to) then there are one of two things wrong:

(1) You don't own enough real estate; or
(2) You dont' have the right tax advisors.

Now, I can't say that because of AMT.

Diane -

Was attempting to contact you, via PM. I can understand why you might want to disable this feature, as your box would likely be full daily. Do you have a preferred method of contact?

Thank you.

Originally Posted by andviv

I need an example to understand this...

Let's say I put together a deal, bring partners to finance it and I don't put any money and I will be the general partner.... we will split profits 50/50 with the money partners.

We sell after a couple of years and make, let's say, 1M in profit. 500K is for the partners, 500K for me as agreed. The partners will pay 75K in taxes, I will 150K.

Is this correct?

Actually Andres, everybody would pay at the 35% bracket... so it would be the higher rate for both the money partners and you.

Yes, SteveO, it's unreal.