FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Taxing Carried Interest

by EILEEN APPELBAUM

Private equity firms recruit investors—pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, wealthy individuals—for an investment fund. The private equity fund is structured as a partnership in which the sponsoring private equity company is the general partner and the investors in the fund are limited partners. The investment fund acquires a portfolio of operating companies with the expectation that the fund will make a profitable exit from the investments in a few years. The general partner (the private equity firm) makes the decisions about which companies to buy, how they should be managed, and when they should be sold. The limited partners share in any gains (or losses), but do not have a say in decision-making. The private equity firm typically sponsors multiple special purpose private equity investment funds, each of which is structured as a separate partnership.

Firms that sponsor private equity funds operate on a “two and 20” model. They typically collect a flat 2 percent management fee on all money committed to the investment fund by the limited partners. The management fees cover the costs of managing the fund and its investments, including payments to members of the private equity firm for work they perform.

The private equity firm that sponsors the fund—the general partner in the fund—also receives 20 percent of all investment profits once a hurdle rate of return has been achieved. The remaining profits are distributed to the limited partners in proportion to the capital that they invested in the fund and put at risk. The profits that are received by the private equity firm are referred to as carried interest. They are distributed to the partners in the private equity firm and taxed at the lower capital gainsrate, currently 15 percent, not at the top personal income rate of 35 percent. (It is worth noting, as Paul Krugman does, that long-term capital gains were taxed at close to 30 percent from 1986 through 1997 when they were reduced to 20 percent; the current very low rates only started in 2003).

Private equity firms argue that the 20 percent of a private equity fund’s profits that they earn are a return on the equity they have invested—the capital they have put at risk—and should, therefore, be treated as capital gains and taxed at the lower rate.

Typically, however, a private equity firm contributes $1 to $2 to the private equity fund for every $100 the limited partners have invested in the fund. Thus, 1 to 2 percent of the fund’s profits are a return on the private equity firm’s investment in the fund; the remaining 18 percent is a form of profit sharing by the private equity firms’ partners. As with other forms of performance-based pay, these earnings should be taxed as ordinary income and not at the 15 percent capital gains rate.

Eileen Appelbaum is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the co-author of ‘Leaves That Pay: Employer and Worker Experiences With Paid Family Leave in California.’

This article originally appeared in Economic Intelligence (U.S. News & World Report)

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail