Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish special rules for capital gains invested in brownfield and superfund sites.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2292 is a bill that wants to help clean up and fix areas that are not taken care of, like those that are dirty or need lots of repairs, by giving people who invest their money there a break on some of their taxes. The idea is to make these places nicer and better by encouraging more people to put their money into making them better.
Summary AI
H.R. 2292 proposes changes to the Internal Revenue Code to create special rules for capital gains invested in certain distressed areas. These areas, referred to as distressed opportunity zones, include brownfield sites and superfund sites that require environmental cleanup or redevelopment. The bill provides tax incentives to encourage investment in these zones by deferring taxes on capital gains reinvested in qualified funds, with specific rules for how these investments are managed and held. The goal is to stimulate economic development and improve communities in these environmentally challenged areas.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to introduce special tax rules for capital gains invested in "distressed opportunity zones." These zones include areas designated as brownfield sites or superfund sites. Under this bill, taxpayers can defer capital gains taxes if they reinvest in qualified distressed opportunity funds within a specified period. The bill sets out the conditions that such funds and investments must meet to qualify and provides tax benefits based on how long an investment is retained. The objective is to encourage investments in distressed areas by offering tax incentives.
Significant Issues
There are several critical issues embedded within the legislation. One major concern is the reliance on external statutes like the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Any modifications to these statutes could result in ambiguities, making it challenging to determine which zones are eligible under this bill.
Another issue is the vague definitions of terms such as "substantially all" and "reasonable period of time," which can lead to inconsistent applications and legal disputes. Further complexity arises from the intricate rules regarding the calculation of gains and investment basis, potentially overwhelming taxpayers unfamiliar with these financial procedures.
The bill also introduces provisions that favor long-term investments, which may inadvertently benefit wealthier individuals or larger investors capable of maintaining investments over extended periods. This could disadvantage smaller investors who cannot afford such long-term commitments. Additionally, the sunset clause setting a deadline for investment elections may spur accelerated tax planning, potentially encouraging tax avoidance schemes.
The leniency in penalties for failing to adhere to the 90-percent investment standard, owing to a "reasonable cause" exception, is another area of concern that might result in lower compliance and an increase in enforcement challenges.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to channel investments into economically distressed areas, potentially leading to revitalization and economic growth in these regions. This has the potential to boost local economies, create jobs, and improve infrastructure. However, the complex tax provisions and the focus on longer-term investments may deter average taxpayers and small investors from participating, limiting the broad-based impact on the public.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For investors, especially those who can capitalize on long-term ventures, this bill presents an opportunity to defer taxes while contributing to community development. However, the complexity of the provisions may necessitate consulting with tax professionals, increasing costs and potentially benefiting those with greater resources to handle such complexities.
Small investors and average taxpayers may find the provisions challenging to understand and comply with, possibly leading them to shy away from participating. This could result in the intended benefits of economic revitalization not reaching the smaller players in the market.
Local governments and communities in the specified distressed zones could benefit from an influx of investments resulting from this bill, assuming that the tax incentives are sufficiently attractive to bring in investors willing to navigate the bill's complexity.
In conclusion, while the bill has the potential to promote investment and economic opportunity in distressed areas, it also presents several challenges in terms of complexity and accessibility. The ultimate success of the legislation will likely depend on how well these issues are addressed in its implementation and any future regulatory guidance provided.
Issues
The reliance on external statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for defining 'qualified distressed opportunity zones' may lead to legal ambiguity if these statutes are amended or repealed. This can cause confusion over which zones qualify, as mentioned in Section 2.
The definition of terms like 'substantially all' and 'reasonable period of time' in Section 2 is vague and may lead to inconsistent interpretations, presenting legal challenges and potential disputes regarding compliance.
The complexity of determining the basis for qualified distressed opportunity zone property, especially with adjustments in Section 2, might be overly burdensome for taxpayers and could deter participation or result in errors in tax filings.
Provisions favoring long-term investments, such as increased basis after holding periods in Section 2, may disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals and larger investors who can afford to hold investments for extended periods, potentially disadvantaging smaller investors.
The sunset clause for the election of deferrals after December 31, 2033, in Section 2 could create pressure for accelerated tax planning, potentially leading to tax avoidance strategies that exploit this deadline.
The penalties for failure to meet the 90-percent investment standard are considered lenient due to the 'reasonable cause' exception in Section 2, which might encourage non-compliance and present enforcement challenges.
The distinction between investments of gains with elections and other investments in Section 2 needs clearer examples or guidelines to prevent tax compliance issues and confusion among taxpayers.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states that it can be referred to as the “Economic Opportunity for Distressed Communities Act.”
2. Establishment of special rules for capital gains invested in distressed opportunity zones Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes special tax rules for capital gains invested in "distressed opportunity zones," allowing taxpayers to defer such gains if they reinvest them in qualified funds within 180 days. It specifies requirements for these funds and properties, outlines penalties for non-compliance, and provides rules for taxpayers regarding how gains are treated over different investment periods.
1400Z–3. Special rules for capital gains invested in distressed opportunity zones Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines special rules for deferring capital gains taxes when investing in distressed opportunity zones. It allows taxpayers to exclude capital gains from their income if they invest in a qualified distressed opportunity fund, sets conditions for how long investments must be held for various tax benefits, and describes what qualifies as a distressed opportunity fund and zone.