Category: Congress

The Biden Administration Proposes Mark-to-Market Minimum Tax on Individuals With More than $100 Million in Assets

Summary and Background.  On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration proposed a 20% minimum tax on individuals who have more than $100 million in assets.  The minimum tax would be based on all economic income (which the proposal refers to as “total income”), including unrealized gain.  The tax would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.  The minimum tax would be fully phased in for taxpayers with assets of $200 million or more.

Under the proposal, an individual’s 2023 minimum tax liability would be payable in nine equal annual installments (e.g., in 2024-2032).  For 2024 and thereafter, the minimum tax liability would be payable in five annual installments.  The tax may be avoided by giving away assets to section 501(c)(3) organizations (including private foundations or donor-advised funds) or 501(c)(4) organizations before the effective date of the legislation so as to avoid the $100 million threshold.

The Biden proposal is an attempt to appeal to Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and address some criticisms of Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Or.) mark-to-market proposal.  Senator Manchin has expressed support for a minimum 15% tax on individuals, and this support was apparently an impetus for the proposal.  Senator Manchin has not, however, expressed support for a mark-to-market minimum tax, and the Biden Administration does not appear to have received any support from Senator Manchin before releasing its proposal.

The five-year payment period is an attempt to address concerns that Wyden’s proposal might overtax volatile assets, and to “smooth” taxpayers’ cash flows without the need for the IRS to issue refunds.  Under the Biden Administration’s proposal, installment payments of the minimum tax may be reduced to the extent of unrealized losses.

The minimum tax is being described as a “prepayment” that may be credited against subsequent taxes on realized income.  This description provides a backup argument on constitutionality: the minimum tax isn’t a tax on unrealized income but is merely a prepayment of tax on realized income.

Operation of the Minimum Tax.  The minimum tax would apply to taxpayers with wealth (assets less liabilities) in excess of $100 million.  The proposal does not define liabilities, and does not indicate whether a taxpayer would be deemed to own the assets of his or her children, or trusts.  Therefore it is unclear as to whether a taxpayer who is close to the $100 million threshold may avoid the tax by giving away assets to children.  As mentioned above, a taxpayer can give assets to section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organizations to avoid the threshold, and so, if the minimum tax is enacted, donations to charity would be expected to dramatically increase.

The proposal phases in for taxpayers with wealth between $100 million and $200 million.  The phase in is achieved mechanically by reducing the tax liability to the extent that the sum of (w) the minimum tax liability, and (x) the uncredited prepayments exceeds two times (y) the minimum tax rate, times (z) the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million.  Thus, for a taxpayer with $150 million of wealth and a zero basis and no prior prepayments, the $30 million of minimum tax liability would be reduced by $10 million to equal $20 million.  ($10 million is amount by which (x) $30 million exceeds (y) $20 million, which is 40% [two times the minimum tax rate] times $50 million [the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million].)

A taxpayer subject to the minimum tax would make two calculations:  Their “normal” tax liability under our current realization system, and the “minimum” tax under the proposal. Tax would be paid on the greater of the two.

For purposes of the 20% minimum tax, the taxpayer would include all unrealized gain on “tradeable assets.”  The proposal does not define tradeable assets.  Tradeable assets would be valued using end-of-year market prices.  The taxpayer would also include all unrealized gain on “non-tradeable assets.”  Non-tradeable assets would be valued using the greater of (i) the original or adjusted cost basis, (ii) the last valuation event from investment (i.e., a round of equity financing), (iii) borrowing (i.e., a lender’s appraisal), (iv) financial statements, or (v) other methods approved by the IRS.  Original or adjusted cost basis would be deemed to increase at a rate equal to the five-year Treasury rate plus two percentage points.  The five-year Treasury rate is currently 2.76% and so, at today’s rates, non-traded assets without a valuation event would deemed to increase in value at a 4.76% annual rate.  The proposal would not require valuations of non-tradeable assets.

While a taxpayer would be subject to the minimum tax if it exceeds the normal tax, as mentioned above, payment of the minimum tax would be made in equal annual installments (nine for the first year of minimum tax liability and five thereafter).

So, assume that a taxpayer purchases an equity interest in a non-traded C corporation on January 1, 2023 for $200 million.  The taxpayer has no realized income and no other assets.  The taxpayer would have zero “normal” tax.  Assume that the five-year Treasury rate is 2.76%.  The investment would be deemed to increase in value by 4.76% (to $209.5 million).  The minimum tax would be 20% of $9.5 million, or $1.9 million.  If this was the taxpayer’s first year subject to the minimum tax, the minimum tax liability would be $211,111 in each of years 2024-32, subject to the “illiquid exception” described below.  If the taxpayer subsequently sells the C corporation, it would credit the minimum tax prepayments against his or her income tax liability.

Payments of the minimum tax would be treated as a prepayment available to be credited against subsequent taxes on realized gains.

The Biden Administration has separately proposed that death would give rise to a realization event.  If a taxpayer’s prepayments in excess of tax liability exceed gains at death, the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund.  The refund would be included in a single decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes.  Net uncredited used prepayments of a married decedent would be transferred to the surviving spouse (or as otherwise provided in regulations).

In contrast to Senator Wyden’s proposal, which does not require that tax be paid on unrealized gain for non-traded assets, and instead imposes a deferral charge upon realization, the Biden Administration’s proposal generally requires that minimum tax be calculated with respect to all unrealized gain, including deemed appreciation on non-traded assets, subject to an “illiquid exception.”  If tradeable assets held directly or indirectly make up less than 20% of a taxpayer’s wealth, the taxpayer may elect to include only unrealized gain in tradeable assets in the calculation of their minimum tax liability.  A taxpayer that makes this election would be subject to a deferral charge upon realization to the extent of gain, but the deferral charge would not exceed 10% of unrealized gain.  The proposal does not indicate the rate of the deferral charge.

This aspect of the Biden Administration’s proposal provides a meaningful benefit to “illiquid” taxpayers and encourages taxpayers to become “illiquid” to qualify for the exception.  The proposal provides that tradeable assets held “indirectly” are treated as owned by the taxpayer for this purpose and therefore it is unclear whether and to what extent taxpayers can contribute tradeable assets into nontradeable vehicles to qualify for the illiquid exception.  The proposal would provide the IRS with specific authority to issue rules to prevent taxpayers from inappropriately converting tradeable assets to non-tradeable assets.

Estimated tax payments would not be required for minimum tax liability, and the minimum tax payments would be excluded from the prior year’s tax liability for purposes of computing estimated tax required to avoid the penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes.

The tax is expected to affect 20,000 taxpayers (in contrast to roughly 700 under Wyden’s plan) but to generate approximately the same amount of revenue as Wyden’s proposal: $360 billion over ten years as estimated by the Treasury Department (which is expected to be around $550 billion over 10 years under the Joint Committee on Taxation’s “scoring” methodology).

Article By Robert Gaut, Martin T Hamilton, and Colleen Hart at Proskauer Rose LLP

For more tax law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmed to U.S. Supreme Court

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will become the first Black woman and the third Black Justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

With support of only a handful of Republican senators, a Senate majority voted to confirm Judge Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court, 53-47, on April 7, 2022. Judge Jackson will fill the vacancy left by Justice Stephen Breyer, who will retire at the end of the Court’s current term.

During Judge Jackson’s distinguished legal career, she served as a federal district judge from 2013 to 2021, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 2021 to 2022, assistant special counsel and then vice chair on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a federal public defender, and a private practice attorney.

Despite bringing a new perspective to the bench, Judge Jackson is unlikely to affect the current composition of the Court. Her decisions as a district and appellate judge suggest that, like Justice Breyer, she takes a pragmatic approach to the law.

Judge Jackson’s legal methodology will become apparent shortly after she takes her seat for the 2022-2023 term, which begins on October 3, 2022. The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on three cases touching on contentious issues during Judge Jackson’s first term. Judge Jackson, who serves on Harvard University’s board of overseers, has stated she will recuse herself from hearing Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard, a case involving the use of race in college admissions. However, she will participate in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which asks the Court to decide on the constitutionality of a Colorado state law that prohibits business owners from refusing to provide service to people on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Judge Jackson also will participate in the Court’s hearing of Merrill v. Millgan, which asks the Court to weigh in on whether Alabama’s proposed congressional district plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Judge Jackson is expected to be sworn in before the start of the 2022-2023 term.

Article By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris and Stephanie E. Lewis of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

President Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Request Would Strengthen TSCA and Tackle PFAS Pollution

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress President Biden’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 28, 2022, press release, the budget makes critical investments, including:

  • Strengthening EPA’s Commitment and Ability to Implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Successfully: The budget provides $124 million and 449 full time equivalents (FTE) for TSCA efforts “to deliver on the promises made to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act.” According to the budget, “[t]hese resources will support EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluations and protective regulations in accordance with statutory timelines.”
  • Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that threaten the health and safety of communities across the United States. As part of the President’s commitment to tackling PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $126 million in FY 2023 for EPA to increase its understanding of human health and ecological effects of PFAS, restrict uses to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water, and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment. EPA states that it will continue to act on its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

PFAS Air Regulations Proposed By House

In the latest federal legislative move to try to force the EPA to take quicker action than contemplated by the agency’s PFAS Roadmap of 2021, a bill was recently introduced in the House that would require the EPA to set air emission limits for all PFAS under the Clean Air Act. PFAS air regulations are something that advocates concerned about PFAS pollution issues beyond just drinking water have advocated for in the past few years. There are barriers, though, to achieving the desired results even if the legislation passes. Nevertheless, the federal legislative activity underscores the need for all companies that are currently using PFAS in their manufacturing or industrial processes to understand the full scope of compliance needs when and if PFAS air regulations become a reality.

House Bill For PFAS Air Regulations

On March 17, 2022, a bipartisan group in the House introduced the “Prevent Release Of Toxics Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2022” (also known as the PROTECT Act of 2022 or HR 7142). The aim of the bill is to require the EPA to list all PFAS as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. If passed, the designation as HAPs would require the EPA to develop regulatory limits for the emission of PFAS into the air.

The proposed steps, however, go well beyond the EPA’s own plan for potential PFAS air regulations as detailed in the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap 2021. In the PFAS Roadmap, the EPA indicates that it commits to performing ongoing investigation to:

  • Identify sources of PFAS air emissions;
  • Develop and finalize monitoring approaches for measuring stack emissions and ambient concentrations of PFAS;
  • Develop information on cost-effective mitigation technologies; and
  • Increase understanding of the fate and transport of PFAS air emissions to assess their potential for impacting human health via contaminated groundwater and other media pathways.

The EPA committed to using this information and data in order to, by the Fall of 2022, “evaluate mitigation options”, which could include listing “certain PFAS” as HAPs. However, the EPA also indicated that it might use other regulatory or non-regulatory tools to achieve results similar to formal PFAS air regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The bill, therefore, would considerably accelerate the EPA’s process for potential HAPs, which in turn could result in legal challenges to any rushed HAPs, as the EPA would not have had the opportunity to collect all necessary data and evaluate the soundness of the science behind any HAP designation.

Impact On Business

Any designation of PFAS as HAPs under the Clean Air Act will of course immediately impact companies that are utilizing PFAS and emitting PFAS into the air. While it remains to be seen whether the PROTECT Act will pass, if it were to pass and the EPA’s HAP designations were to survive any legal challenges, the impacts on businesses would be significant. Companies would need to undertake extensive testing of air emissions to determine their risk of Clean Air Act violations, which will be complicated due to limitations on current technology to do this type of testing. Companies may also need to pivot their production practices to reduce or limit PFAS air emissions, which would add unplanned costs to balance sheets. Finally, companies may wish to explore substitutes for PFAS rather than navigate Clean Air Act regulatory compliance, which is a significant undertaking that takes time and money.

It is also worth noting that a designation as a HAP for any PFAS would also trigger significant regulatory challenges to businesses that might have nothing to do with air emissions. Any substance listed as a HAP under the Clean Air Act is automatically designated as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA (the Superfund law). Once a substance is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA, the EPA can force parties that it deems to be polluters to either cleanup the polluted site or reimburse the EPA for the full remediation of the contaminated site. Without a PFAS Superfund designation, the EPA can merely attribute blame to parties that it feels contributed to the pollution, but it has no authority to force the parties to remediate or pay costs. The designation also triggers considerable reporting requirements for companies. Currently, those reporting requirements with respect to PFAS do not exist, but they would apply to industries well beyond just PFAS manufacturers. Superfund site cleanup costs can be extensive, even as high as hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope of pollution at issue and the amount of territory involved in the site.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Fleeing Ukrainians to Get More Help From United States

The United States has joined many European countries that are opening their doors and offering humanitarian assistance to fleeing Ukrainians.

Ireland, Great Britain and Canada have all started private sponsorship programs for Ukrainians. That assistance is not necessarily a one-way street. Easing the way for incoming Ukrainians may help those nations deal with their own labor shortages.

Ukraine is known for its skilled workforce, including tech engineers, and some companies in Europe are specifically targeting jobs for Ukrainians, offering everything from language training to child care to attract the refugees. Even temporary employment agencies are involved and new companies are being founded for the purpose of matching Ukrainians to jobs across Europe – jobs that run the gamut from highly skilled tech work, to healthcare aids, to retail and hospitality positions.

U.S. employers are generously offering humanitarian aid and donations to help Ukrainian refugees, but now those employers may be able to offer jobs to displaced Ukrainians seeking refuge. The Biden Administration will open various legal pathways that could include the refugee admissions program (which can lead to permanent residence through asylum, but is a long process), visas, and humanitarian parole (a temporary solution). The focus will be on Ukrainians with family in the United States or others considered to be particularly vulnerable. Approximately 1,000,000 people of Ukrainian descent currently live in the United States.

The administration originally believed that most Ukrainians did not want to flee to the United States because it was too far away from other family members who have remained in Ukraine. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had stated that the priority was to help European countries who are the dealing with huge waves for migration instead. But advocates have been arguing that the administration could create special status for Ukrainians to allow them to enter the U.S. or stay with family members.

In early March, the Biden Administration established Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukrainians who have been in the United States continuously since March 1, 2022, but that did not help those who are still abroad. Visitor visas are hard to come by because applicants for visitor visas need to be able to show that their stay will be temporary and that they have a home to return to in Ukraine, and such temporary nonimmigrant visas may not meet that criterion or be practical in most of these situations. Moreover, consulates abroad are already overwhelmed and understaffed due to COVID-19.

While small numbers of Ukrainians have made it to the United States by finding private or family sponsors, this new policy should at least open the doors to some Ukrainians and likely make it possible for U.S. companies to hire some of the incoming refugees. They will need and want employment, but they will also need support.

Article By Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more immigration-related legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Congress Grants Five Month Extension for Telehealth Flexibilities

On Tuesday, March 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (“2022 CAA”). This new law includes several provisions that extend the Medicare telehealth waivers and flexibilities, implemented as a result of COVID-19 to facilitate access to care, for an additional 151 days after the end of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”). This equates to about a five-month period.

The 2022 CAA extension captures most of the core PHE telehealth flexibilities authorized as part of Medicare’s pandemic response, including the following:

  • Geographic Restrictions and Originating Sites: During the extension, Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive telehealth services from anywhere in the country, including their home. Medicare is permitting telehealth services to be provided to patients at any site within the United States, not just qualifying zip codes or locations (e.g. physician offices/facilities).
  • Eligible Practitioners: Occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech-language pathologists, and qualified audiologists will continue to be able to furnish and receive payment for telehealth services as eligible distant site practitioners during the extension period.
  • Mental Health:  In-person requirements for certain mental health services will continue to be waived through the 151-day extension period.
  • Audio-Only Telehealth Services: Medicare will continue to provide coverage and payment for most telehealth services furnished using audio-only technology. This includes professional consultations, office visits, and office psychiatry services (identified as of July 1, 2000 by HCPCS Codes 99241-99275, 99201-99215, 90804-90809 and 90862) and any other services added to the telehealth list by the CMS Secretary for which CMS has not expressly required the use of real-time, interactive audio-visual equipment during the PHE.

Additionally, the 2022 CAA allocates $62,500,000 from the federal budget to be used for grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas. Such funds may be used to finance construction of facilities and systems providing telemedicine services and distance learning services in qualified “rural areas.”

Passage of the 2022 CAA is a substantial step in the right direction for stakeholders hoping to see permanent legislative change surrounding Medicare telehealth reimbursement.

Article By Joelle M. Wilson and Laura Little of Polsinelli PC

For more health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

A View From Washington, DC — Budgets, Bills, and Elections

February in Washington, DC, usually ushers in the start of a new federal budget approval process, but that will not be the case this year. President Joe Biden is not expected to release his fiscal year 2023 budget until later this spring, which will be followed by congressional hearings and oversight on our nation’s federal spending. While the president’s budget is not binding, in a Congress controlled by his own party, his suggestions on how Congress should appropriate our federal dollars are certainly taken seriously.

Furthering delays, Congress is still mired in passing the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills — which appear to now be on target for passage in mid-March. Part of the slowdown on passing these bills revolves around an agreement on the overall topline spending number. The House approved $1.506 trillion in spending in its versions of the 12 annual appropriations bills. The Senate never released a topline number. President Biden’s budget request was for $1.523 trillion, $770 billion for nondefense spending and $753 billion for defense spending. Also of note, assuming these bills are enacted, it will be the first time in a decade that Congress has provided funds for earmarks (now referred to as “community projects”) through appropriations legislation.

Another weighty item on Congress’ agenda is the reauthorization of the nation’s flood insurance program. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was last reauthorized in 2012, when Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The NFIP’s five-year reauthorization ended on September 30, 2017, and since then, the program has been funded by a series of short-term measures. The program is currently operating under an extension that expired on February 18, 2022. The purpose of the Biggert-Waters Act was to make the NFIP solvent, as the program faced a $24 billion deficit. But anyone who has kept apprised of the program knows it’s not solvent and is broken in many respects. Current policyholders are facing an 18% policy rate increase in the coming year.

Finally, once summer arrives, many in Congress will turn their attention in earnest to the mid-term elections in November. Several states have new congressional maps due to redistricting. The released census data gave Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Montana, and Oregon additional seats, while California, New York, and Pennsylvania (among others) lost seats. In an almost evenly divided House, the Republicans only need to pick up three to five seats in order to take control, and most observers expect that to happen. The current US Senate is evenly divided and most incumbent Senate seats are safe, but a few states, such as Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, are statistically tied in current polling and are truly toss-up elections at this point, leaving control of the US Senate up for grabs.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP
For more articles about election and legislative updates, visit the NLR Election & Legislative section.

Federal Cannabis Reform – Is 2022 the Year?

Hope soared with the possibility of federal cannabis reform in 2021.  And for good reason –  the induction of a new, more liberal administration, rapid state-level legalization, broad support by Americans,[1] and growing bipartisan backing led many to believe that 2021 was going to be the year where federal decriminalization of cannabis would become a reality.  But, as 2021 continued on, optimism dwindled as any advancement in federal cannabis reform was hobbled by the inability of Congress to agree on the appropriate level of reform  and the proper mechanics for passage.  Specifically, tension rose amongst the elected Democrats on whether to support incremental reform (like access to banks or removal of cannabis from the list of Schedule 1 drugs) or comprehensive legalization with provisions to address social inequities stemming from the legacy of the War on Drugs.  And so 2021 came to an end, and the cannabis industry saw yet another year of failed meaningful change on the federal level.

Still, momentum for reform has not been lost.  If anything, last year saw more bills introduced into Congress (including two new federal legalization proposals) than ever before – clearly indicating its import to our nation’s leaders.  Justice Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court even subtly advised Congress to address legalization, noting that the Federal Government’s current “half in, half out regime” on cannabis strained the principles of federalism.

And so, as we move forward in 2022 with hope, we review the bills before Congress and their progresses to assess which of these may have some traction for passage during this upcoming year.

Secure and Fair Enforcement (“SAFE”) Banking Act of 2021[2]

Considered modest reform, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 mainly focused on granting cannabis-related businesses access to federally-backed financial institutions.  The bill was introduced early in 2021,[3] and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 20, 2021 by a vote of 321 to 101.  At the time of the House’s passage, many believed the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 would easily move its way through the Senate, due – in part – to its demonstrated bipartisan appeal with 106 Republican votes in the House.  Congressman Ed Pearlman, one of its drafters, even remarked:

After years of bringing up this issue, I’m thrilled to see overwhelming support for this bipartisan, commonsense legislation in the U.S. House once again. I feel optimistic about the path forward for the SAFE Banking Act and, more broadly, reforms to our federal cannabis laws.[4]

However, after its passage in the House, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 languished in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.  Momentum for the bill slowed, with those opposing it campaigning for more comprehensive legalization.  In late September 2021, fervor for the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 arose again when the House passed, by voice vote, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (“NDAA”) to add the SAFE Banking Act of 2021.  Many hoped that by couching the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 in the NDAA, it would make it easier to pass through the Senate.  On November 23, 2021, 4 Senators[5] penned a letter to the Senate’s Armed Services Committee urging them to retain the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 in the NDAA.  Despite these efforts, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 was stripped from the NDAA on December 10, 2021 – stalling its progress once more.

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment & Expungement (“MORE”) Act

The MORE Act is the oldest comprehensive legislative proposal.  It was passed in the House in December 2020, during a lame-duck session, but never made any headway in the Senate.[6]  On May 28, 2021, Representative Jerrold Nadler reintroduced the MORE Act into the House and much of its substance provided the legislative stepping stones for the Cannabis Administrative and Opportunity Act (“CAO”).

The MORE Act aimed to end criminalization of cannabis by removing it from the list of controlled  substances, eliminate related past criminal penalties and convictions, and provide essential criminal justice reform, social justice and economic development for those affected by the War on Drugs.  The MORE Act also would tax cannabis products starting at 5% to 8% (increasing by 1% over 5 years) to help fund social reform projects, make Small Business Administration loans and services available to cannabis-related businesses, and prohibit denial of federal public benefits (like housing) and protections under immigration law on the basis of cannabis-related conduct or conviction.

After sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, the bill was finally approved in the Committee on September 30, 2021, with 2 Republican Representatives voting yes.  This act sent the measure to the House floor for another vote before it could make its way to the Senate.

The Cannabis Administrative and Opportunity Act

Embracing the MORE Act’s goals for comprehensive reform, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (along with Senators Cory Booker  and Ron Wyden) introduced the long awaited draft of the CAO into the Senate on July 14, 2021.  Considered a historic and ambitious bill, the CAO aimed to implement a full-scale federal scheme for cannabis reform that reaches beyond just decriminalization.  It hopes to provide restorative measures “to lift up people and communities who were unfairly targeted in the War on Drugs.”[7] Specifically, the CAO seeks to do the following:

  • Decriminalize cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and automatically expunge any arrests and convictions for non-violent federal cannabis offenses;
  • Transfer primary agency jurisdiction over cannabis to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) so that cannabis can be federally regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco;
  • Establish a Center for Cannabis Products responsible for regulating the “cannabis aspect of all products containing cannabis,” and implementing requirements related to cannabis products (g., good manufacturing practice, product standards, product labeling, product distribution and recall, etc.) within the FDA;
  • Mandate federal research and studies regarding the impact of cannabis (including any benefits and/or impairments) on the human brain and health conditions and its impact on drivers under its influence;
  • Permit movement of cannabis products through channels of interstate commerce;
  • Establish Opportunity Trust Fund Programs funded by federal cannabis tax revenue to restore and reinvest in communities greatly impacted by the War on Drugs (including funds for job training, reentry services, legal aid, and youth recreation/mentoring programs) and to help level the playing field by granting entrepreneurs of color access to the cannabis industry through small business loans;
  • Prohibit denial of federal benefits or immigration protection due to a past cannabis-related offense; and
  • Impose federal excise tax on sale of cannabis products, starting at 10% and increasing up to 25% in a span of 5 years, with certain favorable tax credit for cannabis producers with less than $20 million sales.

Though the CAO has lofty goals, it does not force states to legalize cannabis, emphasizing the integrity of state-specific cannabis law.

As a draft bill, the CAO was subject to a review period in which its authors requested public comments by September 1, 2021.  At the expiration of this review period, the drafters of the bill received numerous comments from both supporters and those criticizing the CAO as overly ambitious and a big-government approach.  In particular, many critics take issue with the bill’s tax structure, calling the imposition of an ultimate 25% federal excise tax burdensome.  Indeed, the CAO – as it stands – implements the highest tax structure for cannabis products of all the bills proposed in 2021.  Many allege that the high federal tax in addition to any state-imposed tax could promote the illicit cannabis market rather than encourage business owners to engage legally.  Additionally, the high federal tax could force states to reduce their own tax requirements, negatively affecting their own ability to fund state-run social equity and education initiatives.

For now, the public comments have been taken under advisement as the cannabis industry waits to see what the drafters decide to incorporate.  Once formally filed, the CAO will be sent to a committee for continued discussions and revisions before it can be advanced to the Senate floor for a vote.

The States Reform Act

The States Reform Act (“SRA”) is the latest comprehensive reform bill led by Republican Representative Nancy Mace and introduced in the House in November 15, 2021.  Like the MORE Act and the CAO, the SRA also seeks to decriminalize cannabis and provides retroactive expungement for non-violent federal cannabis offense, except for any person involved in a drug cartel.  However, the SRA differentiates itself by limiting federal social equity reform programs.  Instead, the SRA vests the authority  to determine what level of cannabis reform, including outright prohibition, in the individual states.  States will also retain authority to regulate the use, distribution, sale and manufacturing of cannabis, with some general federal oversight by the FDA, TTB, ATF and the Department of Agriculture.  Specifically, the SRA aims to regulate cannabis like alcohol (and alcohol alone) – another substantial difference from the CAO.  The SRA permits each state to determine the appropriate age limit for purchase of cannabis products, but incentivizes states to implement a 21+ limit by eliminating funding for highways for any state with an age limit of under 21 years of age and prohibiting advertisements directed at any person under the age of 21.  The bill also seeks to provide veterans with access to medical cannabis without fear of discrimination or denial of Veteran Affairs benefits.  The SRA also generally requires that medical cannabis be permitted for treatment of arthritis, cancer and chronic pain.  Similar to the CAO, the SRA will also allow the interstate cannabis transportation.

Notably, the SRA provides the lowest tax structure for cannabis products in comparison to other reform proposals, with the proposed imposition of a single tax rate of 3% that cannot be increased for at least 10 years.  Revenues from the tax would be used to support SBA programs for cannabis businesses, law enforcement initiatives including reentry programs, and veteran mental health programs.

Given its recency, little is known about the bill’s reception in the House and any progress that has been made.  However, the SRA does carry potential bipartisan appeal, particularly because it is sponsored by 4 Republican Representatives.  Additionally, it is anticipated that the Congressional Republicans will appreciate the SRA’s straight forward tax structure capped at a low rate for at least 10 years and its stance on states’ sovereignty regarding cannabis reform.  The real issue for the SRA is its lack of restorative justice and social equity efforts, which may be its death knell in the current Democrat-controlled House.

Implications for 2022

There are now 4 bills (3 with comprehensive legislation) circulating Capitol Hill that could provide much needed cannabis reform in 2022.  Congress will likely continue debating, revising and attempting to compromise on the terms in the MORE Act, the CAO and the SRA.  Potentially, if the 3 comprehensive bills remain on the discussion table, they will compete with one another, potentially dividing the Legislators’ support.  Congress should thus focus on forging a compromise or middle ground on these reforms to increase bipartisan support and avoid competing and inconsistent bills floating around, resulting in another year of unwanted (and unnecessary) deadlock.  Indeed, the CAO could be an example of such needed compromise – especially if the drafters seriously heed the criticisms and comments provided during the bill’s review period and consider incorporating certain bipartisan elements of the SRA, like a more stream-lined and lower rate tax structure.  With that said, the status of these cannabis reform bills, particularly the CAO and the MORE Act, face potential change should this year’s mid-term elections change the makeup of who controls the Senate, House or both.

Regardless, until Congress can iron out the kinks on comprehensive cannabis reform, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 remains a practical law to pass in the interim.  The SAFE Banking Act of 2021 is currently the least controversial of all the cannabis-reform bills, has substantial bipartisan appeal, and will provide immediate financial resources and relief to the largely cash-based cannabis industry.  Though a small reform, it is still a necessary one that is long overdue.  The SAFE Banking Act of 2021 (and its predecessors) has already made its way through the House 6 times, proving that federal lawmakers believe it will help cannabis businessmen.  It may not resolve the issue of prohibition on cannabis, but its passage will likely be a great victory for the cannabis industry, signal federal de-stigmatization of cannabis, promote public safety by discouraging participation in the illicit cannabis market, and help cannabis-related businesses comply with tax laws.

Footnotes

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record…

[2] On February 4, 2022, the SAFE Banking Act passed again in the House – this time, as an included amendment to the America COMPLETES Act.

[3] The bill is the successor to the previously introduced SAFE Banking Act of 2019.  See https://www.cannabislawblog.com/2021/09/safe-banking-act-2021/

[4] https://perlmutter.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5486

[5] Gary Peters, Angus King, Kevin Cramer, and Mark Kelly

[6] https://www.cannabislawblog.com/2020/12/house-representatives-passes-bil…

[7] https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CAOA%20Detailed%20Summary

 

Article By Jennifer N. Le of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Crossing the Wires of Energy and Cryptocurrency Policy: U.S. Congress Investigates the Environmental Impact of Crypto Mining

The rapid adoption of cryptocurrency and other popular blockchain applications has captured our global economy’s attention. Even as the value of cryptocurrencies slid from their all-time highs, the promise of these digital assets and the infrastructure being developed to support them has been transformative.

As with most emerging technologies, policymakers are still exploring the best approaches to regulating these new digital assets and business models. Questions about consumer protection, security, and the applicability of existing laws are to be expected; however, the environmental impact of these energy-intensive business practices has prompted considerable study and regulatory activity across the globe, including attention in the United States.

To understand the increasing energy demands associated with major cryptocurrencies – predominantly, Bitcoin and Ethereum – it is important to understand how many cryptocurrencies are generated in the first instance. Many countries, including China, have banned cryptocurrency mining, and, with the United States becoming the largest source of cryptocurrency mining activity, Congress began active investigations and hearings into the energy demands and environmental impacts in January 2022.

Proof of What? Why certain cryptocurrencies create high energy demands. 

Not all cryptocurrencies – or blockchain platforms, for that matter – are created equal in their energy demands. The goal of most major cryptocurrency platforms is to create a decentralized, distributed ledger, meaning that there is no one authority to verify the authenticity of transactions and ensure that assets are not spent twice, for example. There needs to be a trustworthy mechanism – a consensus system – to verify new transactions, add those transactions to the blockchain, and to confirm the creation of new tokens. Bitcoin alone has well over 200,000 transactions per day,[1] so it should not come as a surprise that these platforms take an enormous amount of processing power to maintain.

There are currently two primary ways that network participants lend their processing power, which are framing part of the modern energy policy debates around cryptocurrency. The first form is “proof of work,” which is the original method that Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0 employ. When a group of transactions (a block) needs to be verified, all of the “mining” computers race to solve a complex math puzzle, and whoever wins gets to add the block to the chain and is rewarded in coins. The competitive nature of proof of work consensus systems has led to substantial increases in computing power provided by institutional cryptocurrency mining operations and, with that, higher energy demands.

The second form is “proof of stake,” which newer platforms like Cardano and ETH2 use, promises to require considerably less energy to operate. With this method, validators “stake” their currency for a chance at verifying new transactions and updating the blockchain. This method rewards long-term investment in a particular blockchain, rather than raw computing power. A validator is picked based on how much currency they have staked and how long it has been staked for. Once the block is verified, other validators must review and accept the data before it’s added to the blockchain. Then, everyone who participated in validating the block is rewarded with coins.

While proof of stake consensus systems are becoming more common, the dominant – and most valuable – cryptocurrencies are still generated through energy-intensive proof of work systems.

Turning out the lights on Crypto: China bans domestic mining and other countries follow.

China has been incredibly influential in the modern cryptocurrency debate around energy use. For several years, China was the cryptocurrency mining capital of the world, providing an average of two-thirds of the world’s processing power dedicated to Bitcoin mining through early 2021.[2] In June 2021, however, China banned all domestic cryptocurrency mining operations, citing the environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining energy demands among its concerns.[3]

As Bitcoin miners fled China, many relocated to neighboring countries, such as Kazakhstan, and the United States became the largest source of mining activity – an estimated 35.1% of global mining power.[4] The surge in Bitcoin mining activity in Kazakhstan has not been without its controversy. Many Kazakhstan-based crypto mining operations are powered by coal plants, and there has been considerable unrest sparked by rising fuel costs.[5]

With some countries experiencing negative impacts from cryptocurrency mining operations, several countries have followed China’s lead in banning cryptocurrencies. According to a 2021 report prepared by the Law Library of Congress, at least eight other countries – Egypt, Iraq, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Bangladesh – have banned cryptocurrencies.[6] Many other countries have impliedly banned cryptocurrency or cryptocurrency exchanges, as well.[7]

U.S. Congress shines its spotlight on the energy demands of cryptocurrency mining.

Now home to over a third of the global computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin, the United States has turned its attention to domestic miners and their impacts on the environment and local economies.

In June 2021, U.S. policymakers were still predominantly focused on the consumer protection and security concerns raised by digital currencies; however, Senator Elizabeth Warren alluded to her growing concerns about the environmental costs of, particularly, proof of work mining.[8] On December 2, 2021, Senator Warren sent a letter requesting information on the environmental footprint of New York-based Bitcoin miner Greenridge Generation.[9] The letter observed that, “[g]iven the extraordinarily high energy usage and carbon emissions associated with Bitcoin mining, mining operations at Greenridge and other plants raise concerns about their impacts on the global environment, on local ecosystems, and on consumer electricity costs.”[10] Senator Warren’s concerns sparked several rounds of congressional oversight and inquiries into the environmental impacts of, particularly, proof of work cryptocurrencies, over the past month.

Committee Hearing on “Cleaning up Cryptocurrency” begins oversight and investigation into the energy impacts of blockchains.

On January 20, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing, where the externalities of cryptocurrency mining were the focus of the agenda. An early indicator of the Subcommittee’s views on the issue, the title for the hearing was “Cleaning up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains.”[11]

The hearing focused heavily on the amount of energy used to power proof of work cryptocurrency mining. Bitcoin Mining has been widely criticized for the massive amounts of power it consumes – globally, more than 204 terawatt-hours as of January 2022. Although some operations are attempting to utilize renewable energy, the machines executing these algorithms consume enormous amounts of energy primarily sourced from fossil fuels.

The five industry experts testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee had competing views on how regulators should address the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies—with some experts opining that the computational demands were a “feature, not a bug.”[12] Two of the experts – Brian Brooks, CEO of Bitfury Group, and Professor Ari Juels, Faculty member at Cornell Tech – debated the technical merits between proof of work and proof of stake systems, described earlier in this article.[13] Similarly, Gregory Zerzan, an attorney with Jordan Ramis, P.C. who previously held senior positions in the United States Government, encouraged the Subcommittee not to lose sight of the fact that cryptocurrencies are but “one aspect of a larger innovation, blockchain.”[14] Although the viewpoints of the experts varied considerably, there was a clear consensus among the experts: energy-efficient alternatives should guide the path forward.

John Belizaire, the founder and CEO of Soluna Computing, said that cryptocurrency mining could further accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources from an energy perspective.[15] Renewables currently suffer from one significant deficiency – intermittency. An example of this challenge is the so-called “duck curve,” which illustrates major differences between the demands for electricity as compared to the amount of renewable energy sources available throughout the day. For example, when the sun is shining, there is significantly more power than consumers need for a few hours per day; however, solar energy does not provide nearly enough energy when demand spikes in the late afternoon and evening.[16] While there has been progress in the development of lithium battery storage – a critical piece in solving the issues mentioned above– for the time being, deploying these batteries at scale is still too expensive.

In addressing gaps in battery storage, Belizaire testified that “Computing is a better battery.”[17] Computing, he states, “is an immediately deployable solution that can allow renewables to scale to their full potential today.”[18] Belizaire highlighted that, unlike other industrial consumers, cryptocurrency miners can turn their systems off when necessary, giving miners the ability to absorb excess energy from a given area’s electrical grid rather than straining it. This ability to start and stop or pause computing processes can increase grid resilience by absorbing excess energy from renewable resources that provide more power than the grid can handle. Brooks shared similar hopes for how Bitcoin mining could help stabilize electric grids, support the viability of renewable energy projects, and drive innovation in computing and cooling technology.[19]

Steve Wright, the former general manager of the Chelan County Public Utility District in Washington, testified that “the portability of cryptocurrency operations could be a benefit in terms of locating operations based on underutilized transmission and distribution capacity availability.”[20] Still, with ambitious goals to expand transmission and increase and integrate large amounts of carbon-free emitting generation, Wright testified that “substantial collaboration and coordination will be necessary to avoid cryptocurrency mining exacerbating an already very difficult problem.”[21]

Congressional Democrats continue the investigation into domestic mining operations and the Cryptomining Industry response.

The January 20, 2022 Hearing made clear that policymakers are doing their due diligence into the impact that the United States could experience as the number of domestic cryptocurrency mining operations increase. Commentary from the Hearing forecasted that scrutinizing the sources and costs of energy used in cryptocurrency mining would be a priority for Democrat members of Congress.

To that end, on January 27, 2022, eight Democrat members of Congress led by Senator Elizabeth Warren “sent letters to six cryptomining companies raising concerns over their extraordinarily high energy uses.”[22] Citing the same concerns raised in her December 2021 letter to Greenridge, Senator Warren and her colleagues observed that “Bitcoin mining’s power consumption has more than tripled from 2019 to 2021, rivaling the energy consumption of Washington state, and of entire countries like Denmark, Chile, and Argentina.”[23] To assist Congress in its investigation, Riot Blockchain, Marathon Digital Holdings, Stronghold Digital Mining, Bitdeer, Bitfury Group, and Bit Digital were all asked for information related to their mining operations, energy consumption, possible impacts on the climate and local environments, and the impact of electricity costs for American consumers.[24] Senator Warren and her colleagues requested written responses by no later than February 10, 2022, so this increased oversight will likely continue.

Even with increased oversight, current trends in crypto mining and renewables could soon make such inquiries a moot point. Amid the heated debate over the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, miners are increasingly committed to changing the negative reputation that it has built over the years – especially as these operations move to the United States. In November of last year, Houston-based tech company Lancium announced that it raised $150 million to build bitcoin mines across Texas that will run on renewable energy.[25] In 2022, the company plans to launch over 2,000 megawatts of capacity across its multiple sites.[26] Bitcoin mining company Argo Blockchain, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange, secured a $25 million loan to fund its “green” mining operation.[27] The 320-acre site will only use renewable energy, the majority being hydroelectric.[28] This deal is set to transform Argo’s mining capacity and is expected to be completed in the first half of 2022.[29]

Capital Markets also appear to have a growing appetite for the development of green crypto mining. In April of last year, Gryphon Digital Mining raised $14 Million Series A to launch a zero-carbon footprint Bitcoin mining operation powered exclusively by renewables.[30] In a raise that closed in just over two weeks, institutional investors – who were significantly oversubscribed – accounted for over thirty percent of the round.[31]

As congressional, social, and economic pressures grow, it is evident that there is going to be a big focus on the sustainability of Bitcoin mining. As such, we may very well see announcements, like the deals mentioned above, well into 2022 and beyond.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Bitcoin Transactions Per Day, YCharts, https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[2] Bitcoin Mining Map, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, https://ccaf.io/cbeci/mining_map (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [“Bitcoin Mining Map”].

[3] Samuel Shen & Andrew Galbraith, China’s ban forces some bitcoin miners to flee overseas, others sell out, Reuters, June 25, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-forces-some-bitcoin-miners-flee-overseas-others-sell-out-2021-06-25/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[4] See Bitcoin Mining Map.

[5] Tom Wilson, Bitcoin network power slumps as Kazakhstan crackdown hits crypto miners, Reuters, Jan. 7, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/bitcoin-network-power-slumps-kazakhstan-crackdown-hits-crypto-miners-2022-01-06/ (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[6] Regulation of Cryptocurrency Around the World: November 2021 Update, Global Legal Research Directorate, The Law Library of Congress, available at https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llglrd/2021687419/2021687419.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[7] Id.

[8] Press Release, United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, At Hearing, Warren Delivers Remarks on Digital Currencies (June 9, 2021), https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/at-hearing-warren-delivers-remarks-on-digital-currency (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[9] Elizabeth Warren, Letter to Greenridge Generation on Crypto, Dec. 2, 2021, available at https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021.12.2.%20Letter%20to%20Greenidge%20Generation%20on%20Crypto.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[10] Id. at p.2.

[11] Hearing Notice, United States House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Hearing on “Cleaning Up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains” (Jan. 20, 2022), https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-cleaning-up-cryptocurrency-the-energy-impacts-of-blockchains (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “January 20 Hearing”].

[12] January 20 Hearing Testimony. See also Statement of Brian P. Brooks before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Brooks_OI_2022.01.20_0.pdf  (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Brooks Statement”].

[13] See, e.g., Brooks Statement; Statement of Prof. Ari Juels before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Juels_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Juels Statement”].

[14] Statement of Gregory Zerzan before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Zerzan_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[15] See, e.g., Statement of John Belizaire before House Committee (Jan. 20, 2022), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Belizaire_OI_2022.01.20_0.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Belizaire Statement”].

[16] Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy (October 12, 2017)

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[17] See, e.g., Belizaire Statement, p.4.

[18] Id.

[19] See generally Brooks Statement, pp.8-10.

[20] See, e.g., Statement of Steve Wright before House Committee, p.5 (January 20, 2022) available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Witness%20Testimony_Wright_OI_2022.01.20.pdf (last visited Jan. 29, 2022) [the “Wright Statement”].

[21] Id. p.9.

[22] Press Release, Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren, Warren, Colleagues Press Six Cryptomining Companies on Extraordinarily High Energy Use and Climate Impacts (Jan. 27, 2022), available at https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-colleagues-press-six-cryptomining-companies-on-extraordinarily-high-energy-use-and-climate-impacts (last visited Jan. 29, 2022).

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] MacKenzie Sigalos, This Houston Tech Company wants to build renewable energy-run bitcoin mines across Texas CNBC (November 23, 2021), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/23/lancium-raises-150-million-for-renewable-run-bitcoin-mines-in-texas.html (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[26] Id.

[27] Namcios Bitcoin Magazine, Argo blockchain buys Hydro data centers to realize Green Bitcoin Mining Vision, (May 13, 2021), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/argo-blockchain-buys-hydro-data-centers-to-realize-green-bitcoin-mining-vision-2021-05-13 (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] GlobeNewswire News Room, Gryphon Digital Mining raises $14 million to launch bitcoin mining operation with zero carbon footprint, (April 13, 2021), https://www.globenewswire.com/newsrelease/2021/04/13/2209346/0/en/Gryphon-Digital-Mining-Raises-14-Million-to-Launch-Bitcoin-Mining-Operation-with-Zero-Carbon-Footprint.html (last visited Jan 31, 2022).

[31] Id.

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more articles about cryptocurrency, visit the NLR Financial Securities & Banking section.

Senator Manchin Announces That He Will Not Support the Build Back Better Act – Where Things Stand Now

Today, December 19, 2021, Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) said that he opposes the Build Back Better Act, which effectively prevents its passage.  While there are no immediate prospects for the Build Back Better Act to become law, future tax acts tend to draw upon earlier proposals.  With a view to future tax proposals, this blog summarizes the final draft that was released by the Senate Finance Committee on December 11, 2021 (the “Build Back Better Bill”), and compares it to the bill passed by the House of Representatives (the “House Bill”) and the prior bill that was released by the House Ways and Means Committee in September 2021 (the “Prior House Bill”), which the House Bill was based on.  In light of Senator Manchin’s announcement, this blog refers to the bills in the past tense.

Summary of Significant Changes to Current Law in the Build Back Better Bill

Individual taxation

  •  A 5% surtax would have been imposed on income in excess of $10 million ($5 million for a married individual filing a separate return) and a 3% additional surtax would have been imposed on income in excess of $25 million ($12.5 million for a married individual filing a separate return). The surtax would have also applied to non-grantor trusts but at significantly lower thresholds – the 5% surtax would apply to income in excess of $200,000 and the 3% surtax would apply to income in excess of $500,000.  The individual income tax rates would have otherwise remained the same as under current law.
  • The 3.8% net investment income tax would have been expanded to apply to the active trade or business income of taxpayers earning more than $400,000. As a result, active trade or business income allocated to a limited partner of a limited partnership or a shareholder of a subchapter S corporation would have been subject to the net investment income tax. Under current law, the tax applies only to certain portfolio and passive income.  Under current law, a limited partner of a limited partnership and a shareholder of a subchapter S corporation is otherwise not subject to self-employment taxes.  The Build Back Better Act would not have had otherwise imposed self-employment taxes on S corporation shareholders or limited partners.
  • The exemption of gains on the disposition of “qualified small business stock” would have been reduced from 100% to 50% for taxpayers earning more than $400,000/year, and all trusts and estates.
  • “Excess business losses” in excess of $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a joint return) would have been carried forward as business losses (thus remaining still subject to the limitation) and would not have been converted to net operating losses, and the excess business loss provision would have been made permanent. It currently is scheduled to expire in 2026.
  • Losses recognized with respect to worthless partnership interests would have been treated as capital losses (rather than ordinary losses as is often the case under current law), and would have been taken when the event establishing worthlessness occurs (rather than at the end of the year under current law).
  • The wash sale rules would have been expanded to cover commodities, foreign currencies, and digital assets, like cryptocurrency, as well as dispositions by parties related to the taxpayer.
  • The constructive ownership rules would have been expanded to cover digital assets, like cryptocurrency.

Business taxation

  • A corporate minimum tax of 15% would have been imposed on “book income” of certain large corporations. But the corporate income tax rates would have remained unchanged at 21%.
  • 1% excise tax would have been imposed on the value of stock repurchased by a corporation.
  • The interest expense deduction of a domestic corporation that is part of an “international financial reporting group” and whose average annual net interest expense exceeds $12 million over a three-year period would have been disallowed to the extent its net interest expenses for financial reporting purposes exceeds 110% of its proportionate share (determined based on its share of either the group’s EBITDA or adjusted basis of assets) of the net interest expense for financial reporting purposes of the group. The disallowed interest deduction could be carried forward for subsequent years.
  • Losses recognized by a corporate shareholder in liquidation of its majority-owned corporate subsidiary would have been deferred until substantially all of property received in the liquidation is disposed of by the shareholder.
  • Corporations spinning off subsidiaries would have been limited in their ability to use debt of the subsidiary to receive tax-free cash.

International taxation

  • A foreign person who owns 10% or more of the total vote or value of the stock of a corporate issuer (as opposed to 10% or more of total vote under current law) would have been ineligible for the portfolio interest exemption.
  • The Build Back Better Bill would have substantially revise the various international tax rules enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), including “GILTI”, “FDII” and “BEAT” regimes.
  • Foreign tax credit limitation rules would have been applied on a country-by-country basis.
  • Section 871(m), which imposes U.S. withholding tax on U.S.-dividend equivalent payments on swaps and forward contracts, would have been expanded to require withholding on swaps and forwards with respect to, or by reference to, interests in publicly traded partnerships.[1]

Proposals Not Included in the Build Back Better Bill

The Build Back Better Bill would not have:

  • Increased individual and corporate income tax rates (other than the surtaxes);
  • Changed the tax treatment of carried interests;
  • Affected the “pass-through deduction” under section 199A;
  • Affected “like-kind” exchanges under section 1031;
  • Increased the cap on social security tax withholding;
  • Changed the $10,000 annual cap on state and local tax deductions;[2] or
  • Treated death as a realization event.

Discussion

Individual Tax Changes

Surtax on individuals

The Build Back Better Bill would have added new section 1A, which would have imposed a tax equal to 5% of a taxpayer’s “modified adjusted gross income” in excess of $10 million (or in excess of $5 million for a married individual filing a separate return).  Modified adjusted gross income would have been adjusted gross income reduced by any reduction allowed for investment interest expenses.  Modified adjusted gross income would not have been reduced by charitable deductions and credits would not have been allowed to offset this surtax.  An additional 3% tax would have been imposed on a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income over $25 million (or in excess of $12.5 mm for taxpayers filing as married filing separately).  The surtaxes would also have applied to non-grantor trusts at significantly lower thresholds – the 5% surtax would apply to modified adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000 and the 3% additional surtax would have applied to modified adjusted gross income in excess of $500,000.

As a result, the top marginal federal income tax rate on modified adjusted gross income in excess of $25 million would have been 45% for ordinary income and 31.8% for capital gains (including the net investment income tax).  Nevertheless, the Build Back Better Bill rate on capital gains would have remained meaningfully less than the 39.6% rate proposed by the Biden Administration.

The Build Back Better Bill did not include a change to the individual income tax rates, which was a major departure from the Prior House Bill.  The Prior House Bill included a similar surtax on individual taxpayers, but the threshold was lower at $5 million for taxpayers that file joint returns and the surtax rate was 3%.

The surtax would have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

Application of net investment income tax to active business income; increased threshold

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the 3.8% net investment income tax to apply to net income derived in an active trade or business of the taxpayer, rather than only to certain portfolio income and passive income of the taxpayer under current law.

As a result, the 3.8% net investment income tax would have been imposed on limited partners who traditionally have not been subject to self-employment tax on their distributive share of income, and S corporation shareholders who have not been subject to self-employment tax on more than a reasonable salary. This proposed change was generally consistent with the Biden administration’s proposal to impose 3.8% Medicare tax (although the additional net investment income tax proposed in the Build Back Better Bill would not be used to fund Medicare).

The Build Back Better Bill also would have limited the 3.8% net investment income tax so that it applies only to taxpayers with taxable income greater than $400,000 (and $500,000 in the case of married individuals filing a joint return), rather than $250,000 under current law.

These changes were consistent with the proposals in the Prior House Bill and would have applied in taxable years beginning after 2021.

Limitation on “qualified small business stock” benefits

The Build Back Better Bill would have limited the exemption of eligible gain for disposition of “qualified small business stock” (“QSBS”) to 50% for taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $400,000 or more, as well as all trusts and estates, and would have subjected the gain to the alternative minimum tax.

Very generally, under current law, non-corporate taxpayers are entitled to exclude from tax up to 100% of gain from the disposition of QSBS that has been held for more than 5 years.[3]  In addition, gain from the sale of QSBS can potentially be deferred if proceeds are reinvested in other QSBS.

The same proposal was included in the House Bill and the Prior House Bill.  The Prior House Bill contained a proposal to increase corporate tax rates, which together with the proposed changes to the QSBS rules, would have further limited desirability of investing in QSBS. The Build Back Better Bill, the House Bill and the Prior House Bill only addressed the rules applicable to exclusion of gain from the sale of QSBS, and did not alter the rules allowing for deferral of gains for proceeds invested in other QSBS.   Although the benefits associated with ownership of QSBS would have remained significant, had the Build Back Better Bill passed, in light of the reduction in potential gain that would have been excluded, the Build Back Better Bill would have required a reevaluation of choice-of-entity decisions based on QSBS benefits.

The proposal would have been effective retroactively and apply to sales or exchanges of stock on or after September 13, 2021, which is the date that the Prior House Bill was released.

Excess business losses

Under current law, for taxable years that begin before January 1, 2027, non-corporate taxpayers may not deduct excess business loss (generally, net business deductions over business income) if the loss is in excess of $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a joint return), indexed for inflation.  The excess loss becomes a net operating loss in subsequent years and is available to offset 80% of taxable income each year.  The Build Back Better Bill would have made this limitation permanent and would treat the losses carried forward to the next taxable year as deduction attributable to trades or businesses, which would have been subject to the excess business losses limitation under section 461(l).  As a result, no more than $250,000/$500,000 in losses could be used in any year, and excess business losses would never have become net operating losses.  Unlike deductions that are suspended under the passive activity rules and at-risk rules that become deductible upon a disposition of the interest in the relevant trade or business, the excess business losses continue to be limited after the sale of the relevant trade or business.

This proposal is consistent with the Prior House Bill and would have been retroactive and apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.

Worthless partnership interest and limitation on loss recognition in corporate liquidations

Under current law, if a partner’s interest in a partnership becomes worthless, in the taxable year of worthlessness the partner may take an ordinary loss if the partner receives no consideration and a capital loss in all other cases.  As a practical matter, this rule allows for an ordinary loss if the partner has no share of any liabilities of the partnership immediately prior to the claim of worthlessness, or a capital loss if the partner has a share of any partnership liability immediately prior to the claim of worthlessness (because relief of partnership liabilities is treated as consideration received in a sale).  Under current law, if a security (not including an obligation issued by a partnership) that is held as a capital asset becomes worthless, the loss is treated as occurring on the last day of the taxable year in which the security became worthless.

Under the Build Back Better Bill, if a partnership interest becomes worthless, the resulting loss would have been treated as a capital loss (and not an ordinary loss).  Also, in the case of a partnership interest or a security that becomes worthless, the loss would have been recognized at the time of the identifiable event establishing worthlessness (and not at the end of the taxable year).  The proposal would also have expanded the scope of securities subject to worthless securities rules to included obligations (bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, with interest coupons or in registered form) issued by partnerships.  These proposals were also included in the Prior House Bill and would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have deferred the loss that is recognized by one corporate member of a controlled group[4] when a subsidiary merges into it in a taxable transaction under section 331 until substantially all of the property received in the liquidation is disposed to a third-party.  This proposal would effectively have eliminated taxpayers’ ability to enter into Granite Trust transactions to recognize capital losses by liquidating an insolvent subsidiary.[5]  A similar loss deferral rule would also have applied to dissolution of a corporation with worthless stock or issuance of debt in connection with which corporate stock becomes worthless.  This proposal would have applied to liquidations occurring on or after the date of enactment.

Expansion of wash sale and constructive sale rules

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the application of wash sale rules and constructive sale rules to cryptocurrencies and other digital assets.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have expanded the wash sale rules to include transactions made by related parties.  The wash sale rules disallow a loss from a sale or disposition of stock or securities if the taxpayer acquires or enters into a contract to acquire substantially similar stock or securities thirty days before or after the sale giving rise to the claimed loss.  The basis of the acquired assets in the wash sale is increased to include the disallowed loss.  Under the Build Back Better Bill, a wash sale would also have occurred when a “related party” to the taxpayer (other than a spouse) acquires the substantial similar stock or securities within the thirty-day period.[6]  More significantly, the disallowed loss in a wash sale triggered by a related party (other than a spouse) would have been permanently disallowed under the Build Back Better Bill. If the Build Back Better Bill had passed, it would have been challenging for certain taxpayers to comply with the related party provisions—and very difficult for the IRS to enforce it.  Under the provision, if a parent were to sell stock at a loss and, within 30 days, her child were to purchase the same stock, the parent’s loss would have been denied, even if neither parent nor child knew about each other’s trades.

The Build Back Better Bill would have exempted from the wash sale rules foreign currency and commodity trades that were directly related to the taxpayer’s business needs (other than the business of trading currency or commodities).  This exception would not have applied to digital assets.

Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have provided that an appreciated short sale, short swap, short forward, or futures contract is constructively sold under section 1259 when the taxpayer enters into a contract to acquire the reference property (and not when the taxpayer actually acquires the reference property, as current law provides).

The changes were the same as those proposed in the Prior House Bill.  The proposal would have applied after 2021.

SALT deductions

The Build Back Better Bill has a “placeholder for compromise on deduction for state and local taxes”.  This is a key departure from the House Bill, which included an increase to the current annual $10,000 cap on SALT deductions to $80,000 until 2030, at which time the $10,000 annual limitation would apply again.

Business Tax Changes

Corporate alternative minimum tax

The Build Back Better Bill would impose a 15% minimum tax on “book income” of corporations with a 3-year average book income in excess of $1 billion.  A corporation’s book income would have been calculated based on the corporation’s audited financial statement (or if publicly traded, the financial statement shown on SEC Form 10-K), but adjusted to take into account certain U.S. income tax principles.[7]  Because this is a minimum tax, a corporation would have paid any excess amount of this minimum tax over its regular tax for the applicable tax year.  This minimum tax would also have applied to a foreign-parented U.S. corporation if the U.S. corporation has an average annual book income of $100 million or above.

The Prior House Bill did not include this corporate minimum tax based on book income, but the Biden administration’s tax reform proposals included a similar corporate minimum tax for large corporations.  The Build Back Better Bill does not otherwise provide for an increase in corporate income tax rates.

The corporate minimum tax would have been effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.   

Limitation on business interest expense deductions

The Build Back Better Bill would have introduced an additional interest deduction limitation for a U.S. corporate member of an international group that has disproportionate interest expense as compared to the other members of the group.  New section 163(n) would generally have limited the interest deduction of a U.S. corporation that is part of an “international financial reporting group” and has net interest expense that exceeds $12 million (over a three-year period) if the ratio of its net interest expense to its EBITDA (or if an election is made, the aggregated bases of its assets)[8] exceeds by 110% of the similar ratio for the group.

Proposed section 163(n) was similar to what was included in the Prior House Bill, as well as a proposal that was included in the Senate and House bill for TCJA that was ultimately dropped in the conference agreement between the Senate and the House.  This limitation appears to target base erosion interest payments that may not be captured under the BEAT regime (which is further discussed in detail below).

The Build Back Better Bill would also have revised section 163(j) to treat partnerships as aggregates for purposes of applying the business interest expense limitation.  As a result, the section 163(j) limitation would have been applied at the partner level.  Under current law, the limitation, which very generally limits business interest expense deduction to 30% of EBITDA, is applied at the partnership level.   The interest deductions limited under section 163(j) or (n) (whichever imposes a lower limitation) would have continued to be allowed to be carried forward indefinitely (as opposed to 5 years under the Prior House Bill).

The proposals would have been effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Limitation on using controlled corporation’s debt in a spin-off transaction

The Build Back Better Bill would have limited the ability of a U.S. “distributing corporation” to effectively receive cash tax-free from a spun-off “controlled corporation” subsidiary.  Under current law, a controlled corporation can issue debt securities to its parent distributing corporation that the distributing corporation can then use to redeem its own outstanding debt on a tax-free basis in connection with the spin-off of the controlled corporation.  The Build Back Better Bill would have required the parent distributing corporation to recognize gain in this transaction to the extent that the amount of controlled corporation debt it transfers to its creditors exceeds (x) the aggregate basis of any assets it transfers to its controlled corporation in connection with the spin-off less (y) the total amount of liabilities the controlled corporation assumes from it and (z) any payments that the controlled corporation makes to it. This effectively would have treated the debt securities issued by a controlled corporation as same as any other property distributed by the controlled corporation (which is commonly called as “boot”).

The proposal would have applied to reorganizations occurring on or after the date of enactment.

Excise tax on corporate stock buybacks

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed a nondeductible 1% excise tax on publicly traded U.S. corporations engaging in stock buybacks. The tax was to be imposed on the value of the stock “repurchased” by the corporation during the tax year, reduced by value of stock issued by the corporation during the tax year (including those issued to the employees).  The term “repurchase” is defined as a redemption within the meaning of section 317(b), which is a transaction in which a corporation acquires its stock from a shareholder in exchange for property.  Repurchases that are (i) dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes, (ii) part of tax-free reorganizations, (iii) made to contribute stock to an employee pension plan or ESOP, (iv) made by a dealer in securities in the ordinary course of business, or (v) made by a RIC or a REIT are not subject to the excise tax.  Also, repurchases that are less than $1 million in a year are excluded.

It was unclear how the value of repurchased stock was to be determined in calculating the excise tax amount.  The types of transactions that would have been covered under the proposed rule is also unclear.  The term “repurchase” was very broad and it could have had applied to different types of transactions, such as redemption of redeemable preferred stocks or redemption of stock in a company’s acquisition transaction.  The rule would also have had significant impact on de-SPAC transactions, which involve redemption rights for shareholders of the SPAC.  The Treasury would also have been provided with a broad authority to issue regulations to cover economically similar transactions.

The proposal would have applied to repurchases of stock after December 31, 2021.

International Tax Changes

Portfolio interest exemption

Under current law, a foreign person that owns 10% or more of the total voting power of a corporate issuer of debt is not eligible for the “portfolio interest” exemption, which provides for exemption from withholding on interest paid on certain debt.  Current law does not prohibit “de-control structures” under which the sponsor of a fund will typically invest a small percentage of the capital of a U.S. blocker in exchange for large percentage of its voting stock, thereby ensuring that no foreign investor will own 10% of the voting power of the U.S. blocker and permitting those foreign investors who own more than 10% of the value of the U.S. blocker to take the position that they may avoid U.S. withholding tax on interest received from the U.S. blocker.  The Build Back Better Bill would have revised this exception so that any person who owns 10% or more of the total vote or value of the stock of a corporate issuer would have been ineligible for the portfolio interest exemption.  This change would have prevented the de-control structures.

This proposal, which was also included in the Prior House Bill, would have applied to obligations issued after the date of enactment (i.e., all existing obligations would have been grandfathered).  However, if a grandfathered obligation was “significantly modified” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it might have lost its grandfathered status.  Also, any subsequent draws on existing facilities that are made after the date of enactment would not have been grandfathered.

GILTI

The “global intangible low-taxed income” (“GILTI”) regime generally imposes a 10.5% minimum tax on 10-percent U.S. corporate shareholders of “controlled foreign corporations” (“CFCs”) based on the CFC’s “active” income in excess of a threshold equal to 10% of the CFC’s tax basis in certain depreciable tangible property (such basis, “qualified business asset investment”, or “QBAI”).  GILTI is not determined on a country-by-country basis, and, therefore, under current law a U.S. multinational corporation may be able to avoid the GILTI tax with respect to its subsidiaries operating in low-tax rate countries by “blending” income earned in the low tax-rate countries with income from high-tax rate countries.  Taxpayers are allowed 80% of the deemed paid foreign tax credit with respect to GILTI.

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed GILTI on a country-by-country basis to prevent blending of income from a low tax-rate country with income from a high-tax rate country. This general approach would have been largely consistent with the prior proposals made by the Biden administration and the Senate Finance Committee.[9]

The Build Back Better Bill would have determined net CFC tested income and losses and QBAI on a country-by-country basis.  The Build Back Better Bill would have achieved this by using a “CFC taxable unit” – net CFC tested income and loss would have been determined separately for each country in which CFC taxable unit is a tax resident.  The Build Back Better Bill would have allowed a taxpayer to carryover country-specific net CFC tested loss to succeeding tax year to offset net CFC tested income of the same country.  In addition, taxpayers would no longer have been able to offset net CFC tested income from one jurisdiction with net CFC tested losses from another jurisdiction.  These proposed changes on determining net CFC tested income on a country-by-country basis were consistent with the Prior House Bill’s proposals.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have (i) reduced the exclusion amount from 10% to 5% of QBAI, (ii) increased the effective tax rate on GILTI for corporate taxpayers from 10.5% to 15%,[10] and (iii) helpfully reduced the “haircut” for deemed paid foreign tax credit for GILTI from 20% to 5% (i.e., 95% of GILTI amount would have been creditable as deemed paid credit).

The GILTI proposals would generally have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.

FDII

The “foreign-derived intangible income” (“FDII”) regime encourages U.S. multinational groups to keep intellectual property in the U.S. by providing a lower 13.125% effective tax rate for certain foreign sales and provision of certain services provided to unrelated foreign parties in excess of 10% of the taxpayer’s QBAI.  The lower effective tax rate is achieved by 37.5% deduction allowed for FDII under section 250.

The Build Back Better Bill would have reduced the section 250 deduction for FDII from 37.5% to 24.8%, which would have had the effect of increasing the effective rate for FDII from 13.125% to 15.8%.[11]  The Build Back Better Bill further provided that if a section 250 deduction actually exceeded the taxable income of the taxpayer, the deduction would have increased the net operating loss amount for the taxable year and could be used in subsequent years to offset up to 80% of taxable income.

This proposal generally would have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.

BEAT/SHIELD

The “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (“BEAT”) generally provides for an add-on minimum tax, currently at 10%, on certain deductible payments that are made by very large U.S. corporations (generally, with at least $500 mm of average annual gross receipts) whose “base erosion percentage” (generally, the ratio of deductions for certain payments made to related foreign parties overall allowable deductions) is 3% or higher (or 2% for groups that include banks and securities dealers).

The Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the BEAT regime.  The proposal would have increased the BEAT tax rate gradually from 10% up to 18% by the taxable year starting after December 31, 2024.  The proposal would also have substantially revised the formula for calculating “modified taxable income”, which generally appeared to have increased the income amount that would have been subject to the BEAT regime.  Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have eliminated the 3%/2% de minimis exception.  These proposals were generally consistent with the BEAT proposals in the Prior House Bill, but with different tax rates.

The Build Back Better Bill did not include the Biden administration’s “Stopping Harmful Inversions and Ending Low-Tax Developments” (“SHIELD”), which had been proposed to replace the BEAT regime.

Changes to Subpart F regime

The Build Back Better Bill would have significantly changed the subpart F regime.  The Build Back Better Bill would have helpfully reinstated section 958(b)(4) retroactively.  Section 958(b)(4) had prevented “downward” attribution of ownership of foreign person to a related U.S. person for purposes of applying subpart F regime.  Section 958(b)(4) was repealed in the TCJA, which allowed stock owned by a foreign person to be attributed downward to a U.S. person for purposes of determining a foreign corporation’s CFC status.

To address the situation that had prompted the repeal of downward attribution, the Build Back Better Bill would have introduced a new section to apply the GILTI and subpart F regimes to a foreign corporation that would have been a CFC if the downward attribution rule had applied, but only if the U.S. shareholder held at least 50% of vote or value of the foreign corporation’s stock.  This regime would have been effective for taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment.

The Build Back Better Bill would also have allowed a U.S. shareholder of a foreign corporation to elect to treat the foreign corporation as a CFC, which may have permitted a taxpayer to exclude foreign-source dividends received from the foreign corporation under the Build Back Better Bill’s amended section 245A (which is discussed below).  The Build Back Better Bill also would have limited the scope of foreign base company sales and services income, which is includible as subpart F income, to sales and services provided to U.S. residents and pass-through entities and branches in the United States, which effectively would have subjected foreign base company sales and services income for non-U.S. sales and services to the GILTI regime.  The Build Back Better Bill also would have amended section 951(a) so that a United States shareholder that receives a dividend from a CFC would have been subject to tax on its pro-rata share of the CFC’s subpart F income (generally negating any deduction under section 245A with respect to the dividend), regardless of whether the shareholder held shares in the CFC on the last day of the taxable year.  Current law requires a United States shareholder to include Subpart F income only if it owned shares of the CFC on the last day of the taxable year.

Foreign tax credits

The Build Back Better Bill would have imposed the foreign tax credit limitation on a country-by-country basis.  Currently, foreign tax credits are calculated on an aggregate global basis and divided into baskets for active income, passive income, GILTI income, and foreign branch income.  The revised rules would have calculated foreign tax credit limitations based on a country-by-country “taxable unit”, which is consistent with the “CFC taxable unit” used under the Build Back Better Bill’s GILTI rules.  Together with the proposed amendments to the GILTI regime, this revision to the foreign tax credit limitation rules would have sought to prohibit taxpayers from using foreign tax credits from taxes paid in a high-tax jurisdiction against taxable income from a low-tax jurisdiction.

The Build Back Better Bill would have made a number of other changes to the foreign tax credit rules, including and repealing the carryback period (which, under current law, is 1 year, but retaining the current 10-year carryforward period for excess foreign tax credit limitation).

This proposal would have been generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Dividends from foreign corporations

The Build Back Better Bill would have amended section 245A so that the foreign portions of dividends received only from a CFC (rather than any specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation) would have qualified for the participation exemption (and not have been subject to U.S. federal income tax) under section 245A.[12]  Currently, section 245A allows foreign-source dividends from any specified 10-percent owned foreign corporation (a broader concept than CFC) to be exempt from U.S. tax under section 245A.  Although the provision appeared to narrow the scope of section 245A, as noted above, the Build Back Better Bill would have permitted a taxpayer and a foreign corporation to make an election to treat the foreign corporation as a CFC, in which case the benefits of section 245A would have been available to all dividends paid by the electing foreign corporation (even if U.S. shareholders own less than 10%).  This provision was consistent with the proposal in the Prior House Bill and would have been effective for distributions made after the date of the enactment.

Anti-inversion rules

The Senate Finance Committee’s Build Back Better Bill would have significantly expanded the anti-inversion rules.  Generally, under current law, a foreign acquirer of an inverted U.S. corporation – typically, an existing U.S. corporation that is acquired by a foreign acquirer and whose shareholders continue own the U.S. corporation indirectly through their ownership in the foreign acquirer – is treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, if the continuing ownership stake of the shareholders of the inverted U.S. corporation is 80% or more.   If the continuing ownership stake of the shareholders of the inverted U.S. corporation is between 60% and 80%, certain rules designed to prevent “earnings stripping” – or deductible payments by the U.S. corporation to its foreign parent – apply.

The Build Back Better Bill would have lowered the 80% threshold in treating a foreign acquirer of an inverted U.S. corporation as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes to 65%.  The Build Back Better Bill would also have lowered the 60% threshold in applying the earnings stripping rules to 50%.  Finally, the Build Back Better Bill would have expanded the scope of the anti-inversion rules to cover acquisitions of substantially all of the assets constituting (i) a trade or business of a U.S. corporation or partnership, or (ii) a U.S. trade or business of a non-U.S. partnership.

This provision was not included in the House Bill, but it did reflect some elements of an anti-inversion rule proposal by the Biden administration, such as the lowering of the 80% threshold to treat a foreign acquirer as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and the expansion of the scope of the rules to cover certain asset acquisitions.  This proposal would have applied for taxable years ending after December 31, 2021.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

[2] The House Bill contained a provision that would raise the $10,000 cap to $80,000 for 2021 through 2030.

[3] The amount of gain eligible to be taken into account for these purposes by any taxpayer and any corporation is subject to a cap generally equal to the greater of (i) $10 million cumulative exclusions of gain with respect to that corporation and (ii) 10 times the taxpayer’s aggregate adjusted tax bases of QSBS of the corporation disposed of in that year.

[4] Generally, corporations connected through stock ownership of more than 50%.  Section 267(f).

[5] In a Granite Trust transaction, a corporate parent that owns a depreciated subsidiary reduces its ownership in the subsidiary to below 80% before liquidating the subsidiary so that the liquidation is taxable and any built-in loss of the parent in the subsidiary’s stock would have been recognized.

[6] A related party for this purpose includes (i) the taxpayer’s spouse, dependent, (ii) any corporation, partnership, trust or estate that is controlled by the taxpayer, and (iii) the taxpayer’s retirement account and certain other tax-advantaged investment accounts for which the taxpayer is the beneficiary or the fiduciary.

[7] For example, if a corporation owned foreign corporations that are “controlled foreign corporations” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the corporation would have had to take into account its pro-rata share of such foreign corporation’s book income.  Also, prior year’s net operating losses (calculated for book purposes) could have been used to reduce the book income, but could have only offset 80% of the book income for the subsequent year.

[8] The election to use the aggregated bases of assets in lieu of EBITDA was added in the Senate Finance draft of the Bill.

[9] The Senate Finance Committee’s prior proposal (which included a draft legislation and a section-by-section explanation) provided for mandatory exclusion of high-taxed income.  This approach was different than the Build Back Better Bill, but the general approach of disallowing “blending” of income between high-tax jurisdiction and low-tax jurisdiction was the same.

[10] This would have been achieved by reducing the deduction provided to corporate taxpayers under section 250 from the current 50% level to 28.5%.  The Build Back Better Bill would have not changed the tax rate to be applied to a non-corporate taxpayer’s GILTI amount.  This was a lower rate than what was proposed in the Prior House Bill (37.5%), but the effective tax rate under the Prior House Bill was higher due to the increased income tax rates.

[11] The FDII deduction was higher under the Prior House Bill (at 21.875%), with an effective tax rate of 20.7% (taking into account the increased corporate rate).  The Senate Finance Committee’s prior proposal also stated that the FDII deduction would have been reduced, but did not commit to a specific percentage.

[12] The Build Back Better Bill would have also amended section 1059 so that if a corporation received a dividend from a CFC that was attributable to earnings and profits of the foreign corporation before it was a CFC or before it was owned by the corporation, the non-taxed portion of that dividend would have reduced the basis of the CFC’s stock, regardless of whether the corporation had held the CFC’s stock for 2 years or less.  Therefore, CFC’s dividends that are exempt from tax under section 245A could have been subject to the proposed expanded section 1059.

Article By David S Miller, Muhyung (Aaron) Lee, Amanda H Nussbaum, Arnold P May, and Daniel J. Paulos of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more legislative legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP.