How To Protect Against Harmful SLGS This Spring

On March 4, 2024, the Treasury Department published a final rule that amends the regulations concerning State and Local Government Series securities (SLGS).  Among other changes, the updated regulations notably: (1) require that the maturity lengths of Time Deposit SLGS be no longer than reasonably necessary for the underlying governmental purpose of the investment and that the Issuer certify to such in a new “duration certification”; (2) add to the non-exhaustive list of impermissible transactions; (3) increase to 14 days the minimum holding period for requesting early redemption; (4) require that the Issuer provide a maturity date at the start of a subscription rather than by completion of the subscription; (5) require a new “eligibility certification” by the Issuer as to its eligibility to purchase SLGS; and (6) require notice of five business days for redemptions of Demand Deposit SLGS of $500 million or more.  The updated regulations take effect August 26, 2024.

When does 10% PBU really mean 5% PBU?

When the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) says it does.  (For those of you that want to remind yourselves of how a bill becomes a law, such as the IRC, see this video from Schoolhouse Rock).        

As you may know, issuers of governmental-use bonds are generally permitted to use up to 10% of the tax-exempt bond proceeds of an issue for private business use (“PBU”) before the tax-exempt bonds run the risk of being characterized as taxable private-activity bonds (“PABs”).  If the PBU exceeds 10%, then the issuer will also need to determine whether the private security or payment (“Private Payment”) test is met in order to determine if the bonds are PABs.  (Remember, meeting the 10% PBU and  Private Payment tests is generally a bad thing).  However, because nothing is simple in the tax world, there is a second PBU/Private Payment threshold that you may not be as familiar with – the 5% unrelated or disproportionate test.[1]    

Continue Reading

House Passes $78 Billion Tax Bill that Includes Affordable Housing Help

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill called the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act.  Contained in this bill is a significant reduction to the required amount of Section 142(d) Qualified Residential Project Bonds that must be issued to obtain the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit.  The author of this blog post co-authored a blog post[1] with Robert Labes on this very topic! 

Click here to access the blog post and other insights regarding Global Projects and Infrastructure! And stay tuned for more on this and other developments in affordable and workforce housing tax issues in the coming weeks!


[1] Kind of like Russian nesting dolls.

Love Me Tender [Bonds] – An Overview

The famous song, Love Me Tender, by Elvis Presley, includes lyrics such as “We’ll never part” and about being together “ ’Til the end of time.”  In contrast to Elvis’ wish, the issuer of tax-exempt bonds that makes a tender offer is hoping the exact opposite happens to the relationship between the bondholder and tax-exempt bond.  In other words, the issuer hopes that economics drive a wedge between the two.

Continue Reading

Keep Your Paws Off My Positive Arbitrage – “With the Same Power Comes More Responsibility” (3/3)

The time has come, friends. The Rebate Series ends with this post. At least for a little while. So far we’ve covered the basics of arbitrage and rebate and two key timing-based spending exceptions: the 6-Month Exception and the 18-Month Exception. This party bus now comes to a halt with the Two-Year Spending Exception, the last and longest of the timing-based exceptions to the rebate requirement. If you’ve made it this far, thank you. If this is your first rebate-related post, please read the previous posts setting the stage. 

Continue Reading

Keep Your Paws Off My Positive Arbitrage – “With Great Power Comes Some Responsibility” (2/3)

Our previous post kicked off our Rebate Series by introducing core concepts and terms. However, for every rule there is an exception. And, as you will learn shortly, for every exception there is an exception to that exception (except when there is not).

The next two episodes will focus on the so-called timing exceptions. In the rebate world, there are three: the 6-month, 18-month and two-year spending exceptions to the rebate requirement. Two general points to keep in mind: (1) each of these exceptions is independent of the others; so an issue could qualify under more than one, and (2) the spending exceptions are not automatically applied; so an issuer can choose NOT to apply them.

Continue Reading

Keep Your Paws Off My Positive Arbitrage (1/3)

Reader’s Note: As this is my first post on The Public Finance Tax Blog™ let me provide a necessary introduction. My name is Natalie, an associate with the Public Finance Tax Group here at Squire Patton Boggs. A little bit about me: I have the superhuman ability of not getting mosquito bites; I hate when people pronounce the “L” in salmon; and perhaps most relevant to you, if I can learn tax and finance concepts, so can you.

Additional Reader’s Note: This post has gone through several iterations already. Not because the information missed the mark (a junior associate’s worst nightmare, I promise you), but because I needed to “fun it up.” When tax lawyers call you boring, it may be time to rethink most if not all life decisions. Short of quitting my job, changing my name and generally falling off the face of the planet, I suppose I’ll start here. With this post. On Rebate. Naturally.

Continue Reading

When Overburdening isn’t a Burden

Cindy Mog recently reacquainted us with abusive arbitrage devices, including the factors that evidence overburdening of the tax-exempt bond market (issuing bonds too early, issuing too many bonds, and issuing bonds with an excessive weighted average maturity) and factors that countervail what would otherwise constitute overburdening (bona fide cost underruns, bona fide need to finance extraordinary working capital items, and an issuer’s long-term financial distress).

Continue Reading

Abusive Arbitrage Devices – It’s Time to Get Reacquainted 3/3

(Episode 3 – What Happens to the Arbitrage Sinners and the Arbitrage Saints?)

As you may remember, in Episode 1 we discussed some background regarding the prohibition against abusive arbitrage devices and the policy behind that prohibition – to encourage investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds in long-lived, tangible assets, while discouraging the generation of arbitrage on the investment of such proceeds.  In Episode 2 we discussed the three factors the federal government examines to determine whether an issuer has overburdened the tax-exempt bond market, which results in an abusive arbitrage device if the issuer has also successfully exploited the difference between taxable and tax-exempt interest rates.  In this episode, we will describe the penalties imposed upon rule-breakers and the rewards offered to rule-followers.

Continue Reading

Abusive Arbitrage Devices – It’s Time to Get Reacquainted (2/3)

(Episode 2 – Overburdening (Generally) Not Allowed)

As you may remember, in the first episode, we discussed how the federal government’s primary goal in subsidizing tax-exempt bonds is to encourage investment by issuers in long-lived, tangible assets. We also discussed how the federal government has tried to keep issuers on the intended path by preventing them from exploiting the difference between the tax-exempt and taxable markets. Finally, we noted that bonds will generally be taxable arbitrage bonds if the issuer has successfully exploited the difference between tax-exempt and taxable interest rates and has also overburdened the tax-exempt bond market.

This episode will discuss the three rules intended to prevent the overburdening of the tax-exempt bond market – (1) You shall not issue too early; (2) You shall not issue too much; and (3) You shall not issue for too long. 

Continue Reading

LexBlog