Lawmakers supporting the bill on Capitol Hill to raise taxes on private equity firms going public claim that it’s a basic matter of tax fairness. The bill’s sponsors, Democratic Senator Max Baucus and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, have argued that private equity companies should not be allowed to access the public capital markets without having to pay the 35% corporate income tax. But the notion that private equity firms enjoy an unfair tax advantage may actually depend on a misunderstanding of how they make money and how they pay taxes.
Most private equity firms are organized as partnerships so that they can take advantage of a provision of the tax law that exempts certain kinds of partnerships from the corporate tax. Like most parts of the tax code, these provisions are written in a convoluted loophole-within-loophole style way that would have string theory physicists scratching their heads. So don’t get too worried about the details.*
One of the reasons the partnership structure is so important for private equity firms is that they make so much of their money from owning and selling operating companies—like, say, Chrysler—that are already subject to corporate taxation. If the private equity partnerships were taxed at the corporate rate, they’d effectively be taxed twice—once at the op-co level, and once at the partnership level. To make things worse, they’d really be taxes three times, since distributions to partners are subject to capital gains taxes. It seems a bit extreme to tax the same revenue stream over and over again.
Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page, however, says that this is exactly what the Blackstone Bill would do. “Under the Baucus-Grassley proposal, Blackstone's investment income would be taxed first at a 35% corporate tax rate on, say, American Widget Company when it earned the profits; taxed again when those profits are passed on to Blackstone at another 35% corporate income tax rate; and then taxed a third time at a 15% capital gains tax when Blackstone distributes its earnings to partners and shareholders,” the Journal says.
The Blackstone Tax [Wall Street Journal]
* If you must know, one provision says all partnerships get taxed with the corporate rate. Another provision creates a list of about fifteen different types of entities that are exempt from this treatment. Private equity partnerships fall under the exception for entities deriving income from “passive type income”—which is income from capital gains. This means that the law treats them as “pass-through” partnerships, so that the taxes don’t hit the partnerships themselves but only the owners of the partnerships. Because of this the managers of the partnerships typically pay capital gains taxes, rather than ordinary income taxes, on the profits of the firm.






Posted by , Jun 20, 2007 4:05PM
Why isn't a PTP that treated as a corporation entitled to a dividends received deduction under 243?
Posted by Check That , Jun 20, 2007 4:34PM
I don't think that analysis is correct. The earnings are taxed at the portfolio company level. When they are passed along on the limited partners, they are taxed at the capital gains rate - same as for public investors. What the limited partners choose to do with those earnings is up to them - if they'd like to allocate 20% to the GP, fine. Now, I agree that at this point it's still a capital gain and should be treated as such. But it's not taxed in the manner as described above.
Posted by , Jun 20, 2007 5:27PM
check that - you're mistaken - you're thinking of a normal partnership, not a publicly traded partnership.
unless the PTP gets a dividends received deduction like a normal corporation, then the income will be taxed to the portfolio company (35%), then again at the PTP level (35%), then again at the PTP-shareholder level (15%).
The question then becomes, doesn't the PTP get the dividend received deduction like a normal corporation? If so, then there is no triple taxation
Posted by Bulging Bracket , Jun 21, 2007 1:10AM
What this shows is that nobody understands the tax code, and that Congress is exceptionally incapable of writing effective tax laws.
Grandstanding politicians who've never thought this through but who know that rich people are teh 3v1L!!!!eleventy are beyond ridicule.
This episode also shows that Western populist Senators are the absolute worst people to write tax law. When the attention dies down Chuck Schumer et al who actually have a clue (it hurt me so much to say that about chuckie, but it's somewhat true wrt finance issues) will kill this stupid idea, but it can't be done now whilethe media is paying attention.