Advocacy Update

Forrest WallWritten by Forrest Wall, CAE, Staff Vice President and Industry Relations

Carried Interest Tax Increase Back In Play
During the 2009-2010 U.S. Congressional Session, NAHB led a successful opposition, which included support at the grassroots level from AAM and other real estate groups, to a proposed increase in the tax on capital gain income generated by a carried interest in a partnership. Originally proposed as a means to tax Wall Street hedge funds, the legislative version would have impacted all real estate partnerships with a tax hike from a rate of 15% to 35%. This proposal has now crept back into the revenue enhancements list in the discussions of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a. the “super committee”), as well as being specifically proposed as a part of President Obama’s “pay-fors” in the recently released American Jobs Act. At the time of this writing, Senate Democrats were introducing an alternative tax on millionaires to replace the tax increases – including carried interest – in the President’s proposal. However, the fact that this proposal is being discussed in two significant legislative debates shows how tenuous the situation is for the industry. If approved, this change would further damage the commercial real estate industry and severely impede job creation in the multifamily sector.

Wintertime Snow/Ice Removal
As we approach the winter season, it is a good idea for all apartment owners to take time to review with maintenance staff the importance of diligent snow/ice removal efforts. As you may recall, in 2008 AAM and five other rental housing groups filed an amicus brief in support of a landlord when a snow/ice slip and fall case went all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court. By way of review, in the Allison case a tenant of an apartment building fell due to an accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot of the landlord’s community. The issue in the case was whether a landlord had a statutory duty to remove the snow and ice or face liability. Ultimately, the Court found in favor of the landlord but stopped short of eliminating landlord liability for slip and fall claims.

This entry was posted in November 2011. Bookmark the permalink.