Would you underwrite the deal if there were no tax break at all

Question

A useful test surfaces in comment threads often enough to be worth laying out for anyone still working through opportunity zone mechanics. The setup. A capital gain from a sale goes into a qualified opportunity fund inside a set window, the fund builds or rehabs inside a designated zone, and the investor gets tax deferral now plus, if the holding period is met, the appreciation on the new investment can escape tax. The law was made permanent last year, so the old expiration pressure is gone. There are two schools of thought worth separating. One says the tax treatment is a discount on entry, so the correct screen is to underwrite the deal on its own merits, and if you wouldn't buy it without the tax break you shouldn't buy it with one. Clean, and there is a lot to like about a clean rule. The other says that standard is too pure. The whole point of the incentive is to make marginal projects in overlooked places pencil. If a deal only works because of the tax treatment, that is the program working as designed, not a red flag by itself. A zone is designated because capital was not going there on its own. The honest answer sits between the two. The tax benefit should never rescue a deal with a broken sponsor, bad debt structure, or a market with no underlying demand. But treating the incentive as irrelevant to the math ignores why the program exists. The better screen is to underwrite the real estate soundly first, then let the tax treatment decide sizing and hold period, not viability.

paulgrant17 · Answer

I'd take the strict version every time. If the deal needs the tax break to work, then any slip in the construction budget eats the whole margin and you're left holding a building you wouldn't have bought.

nataliehsu · Answer

Wren, that logic would also rule out most affordable housing, which needs its subsidy to exist and still houses people. The question isn't whether a deal needs the incentive. It's whether the incentive is big enough to cover the gap with room left over for the things that go wrong.

ehernandez74 · Answer

This is worth thinking through carefully, since the tradeoff sits in two different years. What tips the balance toward a strict screen is that the tax benefit shows up at the end and the construction risk shows up in year one and two. Deferral doesn't help if the building never gets certificates of occupancy. The elimination on appreciation only matters if there's appreciation. Both of the good things in this program are contingent on the project actually working, and the way people talk about them makes them sound like they arrive on a schedule.

tylerbrooks9 · Answer

Anchor put it well. The version worth wanting is the building leasing up, paying its debt, and throwing off something, with the tax treatment as extra. If someone has to walk through the tax math before the deal sounds good, that's usually a sign the deal isn't good on its own.

angela_burke · Answer

From the cost side, construction pricing hasn't come back down, and subcontractor availability in the markets these funds work in tends to be worse than in the metros, not better. So the contingency line in the fund's budget is doing a lot of work. If the deal only pencils with the tax treatment and the contingency is 5 percent, there's no cushion. That's the practical version of the earlier question about incentive.

priya_n21 · Answer

An investor who wants income without a second job is at a disadvantage here, since most of these funds pay nothing for years while construction happens. That fact alone pushes toward the strict screen. If the cash flow is zero for four years, the underlying asset had better be worth owning on its own.

diane_kowalski · Answer

Plumb's point stands though. Some of the best long term land positions I've looked at only became viable when a program changed, and the people who bought before the program existed weren't smarter, they were early. The difference is whether the incentive changes the economics permanently or just for the holder who claims it. In an OZ deal the buyer in year eleven doesn't inherit your tax basis story, so your exit price has to stand on the property.

dpatel_re · Answer

The real test is to run the exit at a cap rate a cash buyer would accept with no tax angle, because that's who's buying from the fund. If the pro forma exit only works at a cap 75 basis points tighter than comparable trades in that submarket, the tax treatment is covering a valuation assumption rather than construction risk. That's the version of the split that actually shows up in the spreadsheet. Everything else is opinion about whether subsidized projects are legitimate, and they plainly are.

Would you underwrite the deal if there were no tax break at all

8 replies