Proposed Tax Would Actually Hit Family Businesses Hard
Proposed “Carried Interest” Tax Purports to Soak Wall Street But Hits Family Businesses
For the time being, the Senate has again abandoned efforts to impose a “carried interest tax” on venture capitalists, investors, and managers of family businesses. The tax would have increased the 15% capital gains tax rate on certain investors’ profits to the top income tax rate, which is scheduled to hit 39.6% on January 1st (H.R. 4213). The share of investors’ profits is called “carried interest.” It might appear at first glance that it’s perfectly fine for investment managers to be taxed at higher rates on their “carried interest.” But venture capitalists and investors don’t reside exclusively on Wall Street. The law was written so broadly that it could have hit approximately 6.5 million people invested in real estate partnerships that own anything from a single dwelling to sizable commercial properties.
The proposed legislation attempts to sway middle America by couching the carried interest tax as imposing a higher rate on “investment management services” and “investment managers” who work for Wall Street houses. 
In reality, the proposed legislation could have imposed a higher tax rate on any partnerships invested in particular assets. The higher rates would apply to investment gains and also to gains from the sale of the partnership, and therefore, a sale of the family business would not qualify as a capital gains transaction. Family operations are commonly formed as partnerships and managed by a family member. Under the proposed legislation, the managing family member could be subject to the “carried interest tax.” For a family partnership to gain liability protection and also not be subject to the higher taxes, an outsider – not a family member — would have to manage the partnership. The House version of the legislation exempted family farms and ranches held in partnerships. Other family partnerships would have had to wait for the Treasury Department to exempt them through regulations.
Although the proposed legislation is dead for now, it is likely to reemerge as efforts to plug the federal deficit mount. The increased carried interest tax may be reintroduced in some other form. If so, watch carefully to see how the “carried interest” tax will hit families that are well beyond the alleged targets of the legislation, and communicate any concerns to your representatives in Congress.
Dan A. Penning
Wright Penning & Beamer is pleased to announce that Dan A. Penning has been named a FIVE STAR Wealth Manager by HOUR Detroit magazine in its June, 2010 issue. 
Wealth managers, broadly defined, are those individuals who help you manage your financial world and/or implement aspects of your financial strategies. Common examples of wealth managers are financial advisers, life insurance agents, accountants, tax advisors, attorneys, etc. With more than 11,000 wealth managers in the Detroit area, how do you find someone who listens to you, represents your interests and operates with an emphasis on integrity and service? HOUR Detroit magazine can help. The magazine formed a partnership with Crescendo Business Services to find out which wealth managers scored highest in overall satisfaction.
The resulting list of 2010 FIVE STAR Wealth Managers is an elite group, representing less than 7 percent of the wealth managers in the Detroit area. Only 686 of the top-scoring wealth managers made this year’s list. . . . ”
Recently, many of my firm’s clients who own multiple acres of land in northern Michigan have been contacted by petroleum company representatives and offered oil and gas rights leases for their land. While many of these companies are reputable and offer fairly standard terms in their leases, they are generally trying to secure leases that are most favorable to them. The landowner should be aware of provisions that can be included to protect their investment and maximize the owner’s financial return.
A “Pugh Clause” protects the landowner by requiring the oil and gas company to release certain land subject to the lease after termination of the lease term that has not been pooled into the land subject to the royalty payment in the event an active well results from the lease and exploration. For example, an oil and gas company may only pool an apportion of the leased land for royalty purposes and without a Pugh Clause, the companies in some instances can tie up the entire parcel subject to the lease even though they are only paying royalties on a portion of the land.
The Michigan General Property Tax Act (the Act) requires real property in Michigan be assessed yearly and taxed at one-half (1/2) of its true cash value (true cash value is the same as market value). However, with the passage of the Headlee Amendment to the Michigan Constitution in 1994, limitations were placed on how much assessments and taxes could go up each year. Since 1994-1995, annual property tax increases have been “capped” at levels specified in the Act and remain capped until a “transfer of ownership” occurs. Once a transfer of ownership occurs, the property is reassessed at one-half (1/2) of the “true cash value” as of that date and the taxes, in most cases, go up substantially. The property tax is capped at the new, higher amount until the next transfer of ownership takes place (Michigan property tax bills show a “Taxable Value” and a “State Equalized Value.” The Taxable Value is the capped value upon which the property tax is assessed. The State Equalized Value approximates one-half (1/2) of the true cash value/market value of the property. Once the property tax is uncapped, the State Equalized Value and the Taxable Value become the same for the year in which the uncapping occurred and the cap goes back into effect at that amount).
In 2006, the assessor for the City of Charlevoix determined that the death of James in 2005 constituted a conveyance to Nathan and uncapped the property taxes, resulting in a new taxable value that was almost double the previous taxable value. Nathan appealed the assessor’s determination to the local board of review which upheld the decision of the assessor. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal which upheld the decision of the board of review. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
