Podcast Center
Video Center
Webcasts
Resource Center
Events
September 05, 2011 at 05:00 AM
The infamous “carried interest” treatment enjoyed by hedge fund and venture capital fund managers may be at risk in the wake of the Tax’s Court’s decision in Dagres v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. No. 12 (March 28, 2011). Although the Tax Court didn’t directly assault the carried interest “loophole” in Dagres, some commentators think it may have opened the door for the Treasury and the IRS.
“Carried interest” is one part of a private fund manager’s payment for managing a fund. Most private fund managers receive two types of payment for their services. The first is a flat fee—usually 2% of fund assets. The second component, the manager’s carried interest, is a performance fee, which is typically 20% of the fund’s profits.
The income tax treatment of the 2% flat fee part is uncontroversial: It’s taxed as compensation for services at ordinary income rates and is subject to employment taxes. The carried interest component of the fee, however, is taxed at capital gains rates as an investment. As a result, what is often a majority of a hedge fund manager’s fee is taxed at the 15% capital gains rate instead of the more than double ordinary income top rate of 35%.
Classification of carried interest as “investment” is controversial. Many commentators believe that carried interest is more properly classified the same way as the 2% flat fee—as compensation for services that should be taxed at a top rate of 35%. They don’t see the manager’s interest in the fund as an investment since the manager doesn’t have to put any capital at risk to take the 20% profit.
The Dagres case brings the tax treatment of carried interests into question. Todd A. Dagres, a venture capital fund manager, gave a $5 million loan to a business associate. When payments on the loan stopped, Dagres took a substantial (greater than $3.5 million) bad-debt deduction.
The controversy arose because a bad-debt deduction is allowed only when it’s taken in relation to the taxpayer’s trade or business. At issue was whether Dagres’ management of venture capital funds was properly classified as a “trade or business” or whether he was an “investor.”
