Victor Fleischer Profile picture
Oct 5, 2017 6 tweets 1 min read Read on X
Nerdy tax thought of the day: Treasury decision to withdraw 2704 regs prob reduces cost of estate tax repeal by 1/3 #JCT #valuationBS
Under current law you can play valuation games to reduce value of the estate for tax purposes. Proposed regs would make that harder to do.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Victor Fleischer

Victor Fleischer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @vicfleischer

Feb 22, 2023
The longer that I teach partnership tax, which I think is the hardest class in law school to take (or teach), the more I believe that subchapter K is broken.
We has 704(b) regs that people mostly don’t follow because it doesn’t work for them, opting for targeted allocations and the murky test of “partners interest in the partnership”.
The policy choice behind special allocations is … unclear.
Read 6 tweets
Aug 7, 2022
This is BS. The book minimum tax only hits companies with $1 billion plus in income. That’s not small business by anyone’s definition. 1/x
The language that they are complaining about is a reversion to language in the House passed BBB. It’s a technical fix to ensure that billion dollar sponsors are subject to the minimum tax like other corporations. 2/x
Unlike traditional conglomerates with subsidiaries that file a consolidated return, private equity sponsors like Blackstone, Apollo, and KKR own controlling interests in companies through partnerships (funds) and those companies file separate returns. 3/x
Read 7 tweets
Aug 4, 2022
Whatever it takes to pass the bill.

The climate, drug pricing, and IRS funding pieces are 1000x more important than whatever we do on carried interest. 1/x
I’ve spent 15 years working on carried interest. Whatever happens this weekend, I’m ready to go another 15 rounds. 2/x
Not a lot of easy changes to the current proposal. 5 year holding period is already too short. I guess you could move it to 4, but that looks really bad. 3/x
Read 12 tweets
Sep 7, 2021
The Chamber of Commerce released a bogus study on carried interest that claims massive job losses if we tax carried interest allocations as ordinary income. Here's why it's a bogus study. 1/x

uschamber.com/press-release/…
Big picture: The study claims massive (4.9 million!) job losses as fund managers scale back investment and avoid risk. But raising tax rates on fund managers will have virtually no impact on fund investors or risk preference. 2/x
Unlike corporate taxes, where the economic incidence of the tax is split between shareholders, managers, and employees, the burden of taxing carried interest as ordinary income falls on fund managers. 3/x
Read 21 tweets
Sep 28, 2020
Trump Tax Thread, part 2. The big stuff.

I'll come back to @JesseDrucker's great work below in a minute.

Trump lost a lot of money, mostly other people's money, but claimed some of those losses as his own for tax purposes. 1/x

nytimes.com/2020/04/24/bus…
This gets confusing, so at the risk of oversimplifying I'll try to keep it somewhat general. Also, to be honest, a lot of the details are still unclear. 2/x
Trump borrowed a lot of money and sank it into casinos. When those casinos crashed and were restructured, creditors lost money. 3/x
Read 15 tweets
Sep 28, 2020
Trump tax thread. I'll start with the smaller stuff. What's with the consulting fees to the kids? 1/x
First, by structuring as a consulting fee instead of a gift, it avoids gift tax (and eventually estate tax). This only works if the fee is legit and market rate, which it certainly wasn't. 2/x
Second, a consulting fee is deductible by the partnership, while a gift is not. If Ivanka's marginal tax rate (consulting fees are includible, gifts are not) is < Donald's marginal tax rate (a big if), then it's a useful arbitrage. 3/x
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(