Have you
heard of Windstream Holdings?
They are a
telecommunications company – that is, a phone company – out of Little Rock,
Arkansas. They made the tax literature recently by getting IRS approval to put
some of its assets in a real estate investment trust, abbreviated “REIT” and
pronounced “reet.”
So what is a
REIT?
REITs
entered the tax Code in 1960. For decades they have been rather prosaic tax
vehicles, generally housing office buildings, apartment complexes and
warehouses.
Yep, they invest
in real estate.
REITS have
several tax peculiarities, one of which has attracted planners in recent years.
To qualify as a REIT, an entity must be organized as a corporation, have at
least 100 shareholders, invest at least 75% of its assets in real estate and
derive at least 75% of its income from the rental, use or sale of said real
estate. Loans secured primarily by interests in real property will also
qualify.
REITS must
also distribute at least 90% of their taxable income in the form of shareholder
dividends.
Think about
this for a second. If a REIT did this, it would not have enough money left over
to pay Uncle Sam its tax at the 35% corporate tax rate. What gives?
A REIT is
allowed to deduct shareholder distributions from its taxable income.
Whoa.
The REIT can
do away with its tax by distributing money. This is not quite as good as a
partnership, which also a non tax-paying vehicle. A partnership divides its
income and deductions into partner-sized slices. It reports these slices on a Schedule
K-1, which amounts the partners in turn include on their personal tax returns.
An advantage to a partner is that partnership income keeps its “flavor” when it
passes to the partner. If a partnership passes capital gains income, then the
partner reports capital gains income – and pays the capital gains rather than
the ordinary tax rate.
This is not
how a REIT works. Generally speaking, REIT distributions are taxed at ordinary
tax rates. They do not qualify for the lower “qualified dividend” tax rate.
Why would
you invest in one, then? If you invested in Proctor & Gamble you would at
least get the lower tax rate, right?
Well, yes,
but REITs pay larger dividends than Proctor & Gamble. At the end of the day
you have more money left in your pocket, even after paying that higher tax
rate.
So what has
changed in the world of REIT taxation?
The
definition of “real estate.”
REITs have
for a long time been the lazy river of taxation. The IRS has not updated its
regulations for decades, during which time technological advances have
proceeded apace. For example, American Tower Corp, a cellphone tower operator,
converted to a REIT in 2012. Cell phones – and their towers – did not exist
when these Regulations were issued. Tax planners thought those cell towers were
“real estate” for purposes of REIT taxation, and the IRS agreed.
Now we have
Windstream, which has obtained approval to place its copper and fiber optic lines
into a REIT. The new Regulations provide that inherently permanent structures will
qualify as REIT real estate. It turns out that that copper and fiber optic
lines are considered “permanent” enough.
The IRS reasoned, for example, that the lines (1) are not designed to be
moved, (2) serve a utility-like function, (3) serve a passive function, (4)
produce income as consideration for the use of space, and (5) are owned by the
owner of the real property.
I admit it
bends my mind to understand how something without footers in soil (or the soil
itself) can be defined as real estate. The technical issue here is that certain
definitions in the REIT area of the tax Code migrated there years ago from the
investment tax credit area of the tax Code. There is tension, however. The
investment tax credit applied to personal property but not to real property. The
IRS consequently had an interest in considering something to be real property rather
than personal property. That was unfortunate if one wanted the investment tax
credit, of course. However, let years go by … let technology advance… let a
different tax environment develop … and – bam! - the same wording gets you a favorable tax
ruling in the REIT area of the Code.
Is this good
or bad?
Consider
that Windstream’s taxable income did not magically “disappear.” There is still taxable
income, and someone is going to pay tax on it. Tax will be paid, not by
Windstream, but by the shareholders in the Windstream REIT. I am quite
skeptical about articles decrying this development as bad. Why - because a
corporate tax has been replaced by an individual tax? What is inherently
superior about a corporate tax? Remember, REIT dividends do not qualify for the
lower dividends tax rate. That means that the REIT income can be taxed as high
as 39.6%. In fact, it can be taxed as high as 43.4%, if one is also subject to
the ObamaCare 3.8% tax on unearned income. Consider that the maximum corporate
tax is 35%, and the net effect of the Windstream REIT spinoff could be to increase tax revenues to the
Treasury.
This IRS
decision has caught a number of tax planners by surprise. To the best of my
knowledge, this is the first REIT comprised of this asset class. I doubt it
will be the last.
