When Summer Reading and Public Finance Tax Intersect – Tax-Exempt Bonds, Pop Culture, and the Town of Windthorst

Early in my career, I learned to dread telling people that I was a lawyer because when I explained the niche practice of public finance tax law, their eyes started to get sleepy, then their eyes started to glaze over.  That was usually when I would blurt out “I help finance airports, hospitals, schools, and infrastructure across the country.”  So when I came across the D Magazine article, The Tiny Town Bankrolling Texas Institutions during my summer beach reading,[1] I nearly spilled my Aperol Spritz[2] all over my Excel spreadsheets.

Continue Reading

Moving on from LIBOR

The IRS has issued proposed regulations that allow issuers to replace LIBOR rates associated with their bonds and swaps without triggering a reissuance of the bonds or a deemed termination of the swaps. The replacement rate must be a “qualified rate,” which includes the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”). A rate isn’t a “qualified rate” unless the fair market value of the bond or swap is the same before and after the replacement, taking into account any one-time payment made in connection with the switch. Although they’re only proposed regulations, issuers can apply them immediately.

Continue Reading

Taxable Advance Refunding Bonds and the World’s Most Boring Ice Cream Cone

Taxable debt tempts us to put the Internal Revenue Code back on the library shelf and the tax lawyers back into their pen. But if you use taxable debt to refund tax-exempt debt, or if you might ever refund that taxable debt with tax-exempt debt, then we regret to inform you that we ought to be involved.  In a series of posts, we’re going to take a look at some of the questions and complications that arise when issuers and borrowers incorporate straight taxable debt into the same lineage as tax-exempt debt. First up: a taxable advance refunding of tax-exempt bonds.

It might seem odd that an issuer would consider issuing taxable debt, which generally has a higher interest rate than tax-exempt debt, to fund a long-term escrow at the low reinvestment rates that have prevailed for the past 15 years (what fancy folks call “negative arbitrage”) to retire tax-exempt debt. In certain rate environments, such as the present, where shorter-term interest rates applicable to refunding escrow securities are almost equal to the longer-term interest rates that apply to the refunding bonds, it can make sense.  The prohibition against the issuance of tax-exempt debt to advance refund tax-exempt bonds enhances the incentive to issue taxable advance refunding bonds in this type of interest rate market.

When you’re assembling the working group to issue the taxable advance refunding bonds, you might be tempted to ignore the tax-exempt bond rules and the public finance tax lawyers on your team. Don’t. Let’s discuss why.[1]

Continue Reading

Senate Carbon Capture Bill Gains a House Companion

Earlier this month, we described Senate Bill 1763, which would authorize a new type of exempt facility bond to be issued for “qualified carbon capture facilities.” Well, on July 19, 2019, freshman House Republican Tim Burchett of Tennessee proposed the Carbon Capture Improvement Act, H.R. 3861, the text of which is identical to the Senate Bill.[1]  However, unlike the Senate Bill that has bipartisan sponsorship, Burchett is (for now) the sole sponsor of the companion House Bill.

This isn’t the only carbon capture-related bill with both Senate and House support. The Senate has already passed the Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovated Technologies Act, nicknamed the “USE IT Act.”  The USE IT Act supports the development of carbon capture technology through the establishment of: technology prizes, research and development programs to promote existing and new technologies for the transformation of carbon dioxide generated by industrial processes, a carbon capture, utilization and sequestration report, permitting guidance, and regional permitting task force, among other things, research into carbon dioxide utilization and direct air capture, to facilitate the permitting and development of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration projects and carbon dioxide pipelines. The USE IT Act similarly has a House counterpart, H.R. 1166, which has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. With carbon capture technology on Congress’ mind, and companion bills for tax-exempt bonds for carbon capture facilities pending in the House and Senate, the chances for a legislative change seem to be growing stronger.

[1] If you’re one of those people needs to see it to believe it, click here to see a blackline of the House Bill against the Senate Bill.

SLGs Window to Reopen! And Another Change.

Treasury has announced that, after what seemed like a forever long hiatus, effective August 5, 2019, at 12:00 noon eastern, it will reopen the SLGs windowTreasury can reopen the SLGS window because of the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which suspends the application of the federal debt ceiling until July 31, 2021.

But as usual, Congress giveth, and it also taketh away.  Although the sequestration of federal subsidy payments on direct pay obligations, such as Build America Bonds, was supposed to end on September 30, 2027, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 extends it by another two years until September 30, 2029.

As a reminder, the sequestration rate changes each federal fiscal year. Since sequestration began in 2013, the sequestration reduction rate that applies to subsidy payments on direct pay bonds has followed a more or less downward trajectory. It started at 8.7% for the federal fiscal year ending in 2013, but for issuers requesting subsidies for direct pay obligations during the federal FYE 9/30/2020, the sequestration rate is 5.9 percent.

 

A Lesson Plan in Linguistics and Statistics for Well-Endowed Private Universities

Contrary to its name, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act resulted in a tax increase for certain entities. For example, certain well-endowed private universities and colleges are now subject to a 1.4% excise tax on their net investment income. This tax increase is set forth in Section 4968 of the Internal Revenue Code, and it generally applies to private universities that at the end of their prior taxable year (a) had at least 500 full-time, tuition paying students, and (b) whose endowment (i.e., assets not used for the university’s exempt purposes) had a fair market value that equaled at least $500,000 per student of the university. In addition, Section 4968 only applies if more than 50% of the tuition-paying students at the private university are located in the United States. Since Section 4968 is a brand-new statute, private universities had many unanswered questions regarding which universities are subject to the new excise tax and how to calculate it. Accordingly, the Treasury Department recently released proposed regulations that provide some guidance on these matters. Continue Reading

Carbon Capture Legislation – Potential for a New Type of Exempt Facility Bond

On June 10, 2019, Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Rob Portman (R-OH) introduced Senate Bill 1763 (the “Carbon Capture Bill”), which, if passed, would allow the issuance of exempt facility bonds for “qualified carbon dioxide capture facilities.”  The Carbon Capture Bill has bipartisan support as this bill encourages continued use of carbon-generating natural resources by providing a new tax-exempt financing option for capital expenditures related to a green countermeasure – carbon capture and sequestration. If this sounds like Groundhog Day, that is because it is – this bill was also proposed in 2017. During its last time at bat, the bill was up for consideration while tax-exempt private activity bonds were also on the chopping block – so it was highly unlikely that it was going to pass. Now, with infrastructure and climate change on Congress’ mind, the Carbon Capture Bill seems like it might be a viable candidate.  For more on how this would work, read on.

Continue Reading

IRS Notice 2019-39: Corrected!

On May 22, 2019, the IRS issued IRS Notice 2019-39  (the “Original Notice”), which sought to bring efficiency and uniformity to guidance on the current refunding of certain bonds issued under current and future “targeted” tax-exempt bond programs. While the Original Notice set forth helpful guidance on the tax-exempt current refunding of bonds issued under a targeted bond program, it also created some confusion regarding the tax-exempt current refunding of build America bonds (which everyone was already doing), as Mike and Cindy noted last week.

The Original Notice included build America bonds within the scope of its guidance, which seemed odd because build America bonds were not subject to volume cap, although similar to the targeted bond programs, there was a deadline for issuing build America bonds on December 31, 2010. Additionally, because build America bonds already were required to satisfy the requirements for issuance of tax-exempt bonds, no ambiguity existed regarding the ability to currently refund build America bonds with tax-exempt bonds. This guidance seemed unnecessary and, if read in a certain light, could have led to absurd results.

Continue Reading

IRS Notice 2019-39: Perpetuating the Gift of Targeted Bond Programs, but Creating Confusion about the Tax-Exempt Current Refunding of Build America Bonds

To promote the provision of disaster relief and the development (or redevelopment) of economically distressed areas, Congress will at times enact targeted bond programs that authorize the issuance of specialized tax-exempt bonds.  Tax-exempt targeted bond programs frequently contain both a cap on the amount of tax-exempt bonds that can be issued under the program and an expiration date.  For example, in response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress permitted the issuance of tax-exempt Gulf Opportunity Zone Bonds, which were subject to an aggregate volume cap of about $14.8 billion and which had to be issued before January 1, 2012.

Where a tax-exempt targeted bond program features volume cap limitations or issuance deadlines (or both) and is silent about whether bonds issued under the program can be currently refunded on a tax-exempt basis, uncertainty might exist as to whether program bonds can be currently refunded by tax-exempt bonds issued after the expiration of the program and, if such refunding bonds can be issued, whether they require additional volume cap.  The IRS has previously rendered guidance on specific targeted bond programs to address these questions.  To achieve efficiency and uniformity in this guidance for existing and future tax-exempt targeted bond programs that are silent regarding refunding matters, the IRS yesterday released Notice 2019-39.  This Notice sets forth helpful guidance on the tax-exempt current refunding of bonds issued under a targeted bond program, but it also creates unwarranted confusion regarding the tax-exempt current refunding of Build America Bonds.  For more on both of these aspects of the Notice, read on.

Continue Reading

IRS Releases Helpful Private Letter Ruling for Calculating the Weighted Average Economic Life of Bond-Financed Property (but Mind the Footnote)

On May 3, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service released Private Letter Ruling 201918008.  The IRS concluded

Airport

in that PLR that an issuer of exempt facility bonds used a reasonable method, under all the facts and circumstances, to determine whether the term of an operating agreement entered into with a private party exceeded 80% of the weighted average economic life of the bond-financed assets that are subject to that agreement.  This PLR could have utility for certain exempt facility bonds and beyond.[1]   For more detail, read on.

Continue Reading

LexBlog