Portland recently enacted Ordinance 191451, effective Sept. 14, in which the city is providing a new Downtown Business Incentive Credit (DBIC). Eligible taxpayers may use the DBIC against their applicable business license tax.

The Portland City Council recognized that lockdowns and other restrictions during the pandemic, as well as increased homelessness in the city, have negatively impacted the business community. Businesses and their workers responded by reducing leased space and spending less time in the city. Based on an EcoNorthwest analysis, the council found the downtown, Old Town/Chinatown, Lower Albina, and Lloyd districts had been particularly affected.

In response to the negative impacts, the ordinance added Portland City Code 7.02.875. Pursuant to the code provision, a company located in any of the four districts may be eligible for an incentive credit against its business license tax (BLT). Capped at $25 million over two years (2023 and 2024), the one-time credit is available in either year. The credit would be divided and taken equally over four years, beginning with the year of origination, whether 2023 or 2024.

To claim the incentive credit, the taxpayer must obtain preapproval from the Portland Revenue Division. The division is authorized to approve a total amount of $25M in credits over the two years of the program. To the extent that amount is exceeded, the division is required to reduce the amount so that each taxpayer is permitted a pro-rata share of the total.

To qualify for the credit, the taxpayer must either: 1, enter into a new lease or extend a current lease for a period of four years during 2023 or 2024 for building space in one of the districts, or 2, own and occupy that building space within the district. If 1 or 2 is satisfied, then the taxpayer must maintain at least 15 employees, each of which must work at least half-time in the leased or owned space in the district over the four-year period (and the taxpayer must annually attest to this fact). If a commercial property is leased or owned in 2023, that commercial property lease may be used for the 2023 or 2024 origination date. If leased space is involved, an extended lease must be applied from the end date of an existing lease.

The incentive credit is capped at $250,000 per taxpayer and is computed as the lesser of 1, 100 percent of the BLT in the year of origination, 2, 1 percent of “income subject to tax” on the BLT return, or 3, $30 per square foot of building space leased or owned by the taxpayer.

The DBIC is claimed one-quarter per year starting with the year of origination (2023 or 2024). The credit is nonrefundable and cannot be carried forward.

To the extent the taxpayer breaks the lease or sells the property, the taxpayer is required to repay any amount of the incentive credit received, plus interest. No penalty will be required.

The code provision goes on to state that the director of the Revenue Division may adopt rules, written policies, forms, and procedures related to the DBIC and its implementation. With that in mind, and because this is a new credit, it is prudent to keep an eye on this space going forward.

Dan Eller is a shareholder in the Portland office of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

This column is intended to provide readers with general information and not legal advice. Consult professional counsel for help regarding specific situations.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post Portland’s new incentive credit: a downtown business boost | Opinion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

On Aug. 16, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. Although it garnered headlines mostly for its $80 billion commitment to the Internal Revenue Service, the IRA went a long way toward providing tax incentives to real estate and related industries.

Selecting a few primary issues from the IRA, as with any large-scale legislation, can be a challenge. For example, the IRA provides new credit for zero-emission nuclear power production, but that is probably of little consequence locally. With that in mind, here are but a few of the main tax benefits in the IRA most relevant to the local real estate industry:

Section 179D deduction

Section 179D provides for accelerated cost recovery, in the form of a tax deduction, for certain energy efficient commercial building (EECB) property. The deduction is permitted for the year the property is placed in service. The IRA lowered the minimum EECB standard from a 50 percent reduction in total annual energy usage and power costs to a 25 percent reduction.

The IRA modifies the formula for calculating the maximum benefit, by switching to the concept of an “applicable dollar value” (ADV) multiplication factor. Notably, the ADV can be increased if certain prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are satisfied.

The IRA also contemplates the EECB property could be installed on or in “tax-exempt” property, which could lead to expanded applicability of the deduction.

All in all, the changes to the Section 179D deduction are worthy of a careful read.

Section 45L tax credit

Section 45L provides a new-energy-efficient-home credit for certain eligible contractors. The IRA pushes out the applicability of the tax credit to qualified new energy-efficient homes acquired before Jan. 1, 2033 (an 11-year increase in the tax credit). The total credit can now be up to $5,000.

For single-family homes, requirements are tied to Energy Star single-family new construction program requirements, which change over the period of the tax credit. On the multifamily housing side, the applicability is tied to Energy Star multifamily new construction program requirements.

Additionally, certain prevailing wage requirements may apply; however, the statute does provide certain provisions that permit noncompliance to be fixed.

Section 45Q tax credit

Section 45Q provides a tax credit for qualified carbon oxide captured by a taxpayer at a qualified facility. The IRA extends this tax credit to qualified facilities that begin construction between Dec. 31, 2022, and Jan. 1, 2033 (which, for obvious reasons, presents a limited timing planning concern if you are in the process of commencing construction on such a facility). The IRA will also apply to certain carbon-capture equipment placed in service before Feb. 8, 2018. Thus, we see an expansion of this tax credit that looks to the past and the future.

Additionally, the IRA reduces the minimum annual capture requirements to make the tax credit more widely available. For example, other than direct air capture and electric generating facilities (each of which has its own standard), the general rule is now a requirement the facility capture at least 12,500 metric tons per year.

Anecdotally, conversations around carbon credits – and Section 45Q, in particular – have picked up in recent months. This is a provision I will be watching closely over the next months and years.

IRS enforcement

The IRS received a substantial appropriation in the IRA. Although not specific to the real estate and construction industries, it is important to note that this agency, which is critical to the interpretation of our many tax provisions, should start seeing a direct infusion in terms of hiring in the very near term. Some may see this as a harbinger of future tax audits, and that may be true. But we should also see this as a sign that guidance for the many tax laws that have been (and will be) enacted is in the offing. And that is something from which we all could benefit.

Dan Eller is a shareholder in the Portland office of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

This column is intended to provide readers with general information and not legal advice. Consult professional counsel for help regarding specific situations.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post OP-ED: How the real estate industry benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oh, 2020. What a year … and I am referring only to the interesting tax laws, rules and proposals. At the state level, we have seen continued, and for now final, movement on the Corporate Activity Tax (CAT). At the federal level, lawmakers wrestled with the global pandemic by implementing sweeping tax and nontax provisions intended to keep people employed during widespread “shutdowns” of commerce. Finally, I was somewhat surprised to see local governments press ahead with tax increases in the midst of this global uncertainty. Here is a brief look at these developments, with an eye toward the real estate and construction industries.

The CAT

In the recent special session, the Oregon Legislature passed HB 4202 along to Gov. Kate Brown to sign, and she obliged. HB 4202 made some important changes, none of which directly impacted our industry. Some provisions had indirect effects, such as rules concerning unitary groups and apportionment.

Perhaps the biggest development with the CAT originated with the Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR) and its rulemaking activities. Since enactment of the CAT, focus has centered on the “agent exclusion,” which permits certain payments made to an “agent” to be exempted from the CAT calculus. The DOR’s initial draft agent exclusion rule (“Rule 1100”) did not directly address issues central to our industry, and many industry constituents asked for more clarification.

As modified and later made permanent, Rule 1100 provides two new examples that are intended to address issues the DOR heard from the industry. In the new Example 4, the DOR noted that when a construction contractor bears all the risks associated with completing a project in a cost-effective manner for a fixed contract price, the entire amount of the contract price is included in the contractor’s CAT computation.

As a contrast to Example 4, in new Example 5, the DOR contemplated “cost-plus” contracts in which a contractor earns a fee for delivering the contracted construction services. The rule, however, includes the notion that the contractor “must act on behalf of and under the direction and control of” the owner as it pertains to “the use of subcontractors.” In that case, the rule concludes the contractor may exclude from its CAT computation the amounts paid to the subcontractors.

The industry’s response to these examples and the final Rule 1100 generally has been mixed. Although the final Rule 1100 does provide some much-needed guidance for the application of the agent exclusion in the context of construction projects, the two examples leave important holes that will need to be filled.

Federal response to COVID-19

Where do I even start? In response to an unprecedented global pandemic that saw many local businesses temporarily or even permanently shuttered, Congress responded with the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. Both acts were focused more on issues of employment security and the now famous Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Tax was not necessarily central to either act, nor was our industry singled out for special treatment.

With respect to tax, however, there was an interesting development from the Internal Revenue Service. Important to the PPP loan program is its statutory requirement that the forgiveness of a PPP loan not lead to taxable income to the borrower. In Notice 2020-32, however, the IRS significantly clawed back that statutory provision. Although the IRS confirmed the forgiveness would not result in taxable income, it went on to hold that amounts spent on otherwise deductible expenses (wages, rents, etc.) would not be deductible if paid with amounts forgiven under the PPP loan program rules.

If there is just one thing to take away from this article, it should be to plan now for the “tax cost” of that notice. Finally, it should be noted that as of the time I wrote this article, Congress and the White House are actively negotiating another round of federal legislation to address the pandemic. The various parties are so far apart at this point, it is difficult to see where this will go. In any event, there is some push (maybe a nudge) to overrule the IRS PPP notice, some extensions to the PPP loan program, and, although increasingly unlikely, some form of payroll tax relief. Look for more updates as this rolls out in the next week or so.

Metro’s Measure 26-210

In May, Portland-metro voters approved adoption of a new tax law that will potentially generate $250M per year, with the express aim of funding “mental health care, case management, job training and other services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.” That new tax is light on specifics at this time. It will be assessed against couples earning more than $200,000 per year and individuals earning more than $125,000 per year. And businesses with gross receipts of $5 million or more per year will also pay a 1 percent tax on profits. Again, as more details are finalized, I will be actively tracking these developments.

In conclusion, yes, these are wild times. And federal, state and local governments are using tax policy to address that wildness. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these developments – you will find me at the “office.” Be well.

Dan Eller is a tax attorney with Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91��Ƶ guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

The post OP-ED: At multiple levels, these are taxing times appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Working with clients interested in opportunity zones has been a wild ride over the last year or so. As we quickly move through 2019, we near what could be an important deadline for many investors. Before getting there, though, let’s take a look back to see how far we have traveled.

Opportunity zones were a seemingly overlooked provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017. The TCJA was signed into law late in 2017, and many practitioners and taxpayers focused on familiar income tax topics, such as rates and deductions. Oregonians closely analyzed the limits on state and local tax deductions.

Hidden in plain view to some were the provisions concerning opportunity zones. Those zones were defined in early 2018, but the laws and regulations surrounding use of their associated tax benefits remained unclear in important respects. The Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service would start issuing guidance in mid-2018, with key releases in the form of proposed regulations occurring in October 2018 and April 2019. The IRS later released “frequently asked questions” in May 2019.

That guidance has gone a long way toward answering – you guessed it – questions that were frequently being asked of me and other practitioners. Opportunity zone funds sprung into existence and noteworthy development projects in Portland have been the beneficiaries of fund investments. And yet, questions remain – often about the fundamentals. So let’s start there.

The opportunity zone tax benefits are primarily three in number. First, taxpayers with qualifying capital gains may defer the tax on those capital gains until 2026. Instead of paying tax now on capital gains realized this year, taxpayers may be able to defer the tax event – and the payment of the tax – until the filing of the 2026 tax return.

Second, taxpayers may be able to reduce the amount of tax owed at that time by obtaining an increase in their basis. Without getting into weeds, it is important to think of “basis” as the nontaxable portion of a taxpayer’s investment. If a taxpayer can increase his or her basis in an investment, he or she can see a reduction in tax associated with the investment.

In the case of capital gains invested in an opportunity zone fund, the taxpayer’s basis is initially zero. If the taxpayer holds that investment five years, the basis is increased to 10 percent of the amount of gain; and if the taxpayer holds the investment for seven years, the increase is an additional 5 percent to a total increase in the amount of 15 percent. Although we will return to these timing deadlines with respect to this second tax benefit, it is important to note that the increase in basis by 10 percent or 15 percent means the taxpayer will pay less tax in 2026.

The third benefit is complete gain exclusion if the taxpayer holds the investment for more than 10 years. For whatever reason, this third tax benefit has been the least understood by people I have spoken with over the last year or so. Many people believe that holding the investment 10 years means no amount of tax will ever be paid. This is not the case.

Recall the first and second tax benefits about providing for deferral, but only until 2026. Some amount of the gain (85 percent, 90 percent or 100 percent) will be taxable at that time. Do not forget that. Plan for the payment of that tax.

It is only the amount of gain beyond the amount realized in 2026 (plus the applicable basis increase – essentially the total amount of capital gain invested initially) that will be excluded from future gain. In other words, do not let the allure of the third tax benefit obscure the realities of the first two tax benefits.

Additionally, bear in mind 2019 is seven years before 2026. If you want to maximize that second benefit (namely, the 15 percent basis increase), this is the year by which you need to harvest capital gains for investment in an opportunity zone fund. Heading into the end of the year, developers are likely to be presented with more sources of investment capital as opportunity zone fund investors look to deploy funds to meet the timing deadlines.

Although much of the “rush” associated with opportunity zones has settled in the past few months, I anticipate that to change between now and 2020. The three tax benefits described above will continue to drive interest and investment in opportunity zones. Let me know what you are hearing out there – I would be interested in learning about your experiences and hearing your stories.

Dan Eller is a construction and real estate attorney with Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. He focuses his practice on tax and business law issues. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

The post OP-ED: It’s an important time for investments in opportunity zones appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

If your partnership was audited, would you want the IRS to select your representative? If you joined a partnership this year and it was subject to a tax assessment related to a year when you were not a partner, would you think it fair for you to pay a portion of that assessment? Of course not! Given that many real estate and construction companies are organized as partnerships (including limited partnerships and limited liability companies), failure to act over the next weeks and months could lead to those very outcomes. The time to act is now.

About two years ago, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 was enacted into law. Its rules (the “BBA Rules”) ushered in sweeping changes as to how partnerships and LLCs are audited. The BBA Rules are effective for all tax years starting on or after Jan. 1, 2018, and will drastically affect future partnership audits.

The BBA Rules replace so-called Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) audit procedures, which were established in the 1980s as a way of permitting a partnership audit to occur at the entity level, instead of the partner level. The government studied TEFRA audits, and determined the audit rates were less than 1 percent, while corporate audits exceeded 20 percent.

Citing “complexity” as a driver for change, Congress settled on the BBA Rules as the solution. Although the BBA Rules are equally complex, the following are three main takeaways that show why partners need to act now, instead of later.

First, a “tax matters partner/member” provision is not effective going forward. Under the TEFRA regime, most operating and partnership agreements were spare on TEFRA details. Usually, those agreements included a single sentence, which identified the concept of the tax matters partner/member and may have identified the partner or member who would assume that role during an audit. Under the BBA Rules, that concept has been removed and replaced with the “partnership representative.” At a minimum, update the tax matters partner/matter provision to contemplate the partnership representative concept in the BBA Rules.

Second, give thought to who will be the partnership representative and to what rights/obligations that partnership will be entitled or subject. The tax matters partner/member was required to be a partner or member of the entity. That is no longer the case. The partnership representative can be almost anyone. This increased flexibility is a positive; however, downsides exist for the partnership, its partners, and the partnership representative.

For example, the partnership representative is vested with broad authority in the BBA Rules to settle cases with the IRS. With that broad authority, however, comes equally broad fiduciary duties. With that in mind, when updating an agreement to include the partnership representative concept, give thought to defining the obligations of the partnership representative. Similarly, look to provide some sort of indemnification to the partnership representative for risks arising from the duties of that position.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, if no action is taken, the partnership may be subject to an assessment, instead of the partners. One “complexity” identified by Congress is the fact that under current law, a change at the partnership level usually results in flow-through changes to partners of the partnership. In the case of an LLC, the members of which are also partnerships, this often led to serial audits of many entities in order to cause the results of the audit to reach the ultimate partners. Under the BBA Rules, the default is that an audit change will lead to an assessment at the partnership level.

What is wrong with that? Well, that assessment usually occurs years after the audited (or “reviewed”) year. If the partners have changed in the intervening years, this could mean current partners would be required to pay the tax attributable to former partners. The BBA Rules provide ways to avoid this outcome, but look at this now – not at the time of the audit. Moreover, at least one of those options requires an election to be made with the entity’s tax return. This underscores why people cannot wait until the audit to take action. That time is now.

Dan Eller is a real estate and construction lawyer for Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

The post OP-ED: It’s time to review that partnership/operating agreement appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A common business transition planning strategy involves bringing a key employee into the ownership group well before the ultimate exit. This is a common scenario in the construction industry to ensure continuity and succession.

Imagination is often the only limitation in structuring these arrangements. Each option presents different tax considerations. A few include:

Consider the type of business entity

Although many types of entities exist, C corporations, S corporations, partnership-taxed entities (essentially LLCs) and sole proprietorships are often encountered. Some strategies that work for one or more of these business entities might not work for another. For example, a common strategy used with LLCs is a “profits interest” – i.e., the grant of an interest in future profits without making a grant of current capital of the business. Unfortunately, profits interests are not available for corporations (especially S corporations due to the one-class-of-stock rule). Also, incentive stock options are not available for LLCs and sole proprietorships.

Taxation today vs. taxation in the future

Profits interests can be useful tools because, if properly structured, they do not cause a tax event at the time of the grant. Arrangements for corporate entities can be structured so that they do not cause a taxable shift today, but those often come in the form of executive compensation plans.  These incentive plans differ from profits interests because compensation plans provide for bonuses or cash instead of a true upside ownership stake. Compensation plans can also create other unintended consequences at the time of a change in control of the company if the payout is treated as a “golden parachute” for tax purposes. Those consequences can include increased taxes and complexities.

Paying the tax on a true equity grant

If the company makes an equity (or capital) grant to a key employee, that employee will usually be taxed at ordinary rates on the value of that grant. If the key employee does not have other funds from which to pay the tax on the grant, the key employee may look to the company for additional money. A common workaround is for the company to reduce the equity grant and couple it with a cash bonus. This may not be desired because reducing the equity grant may make the later transition more complex. Additionally, the employer may not have the cash available to cover the bonus; and both the company and the key employee should remember the bonus will need to be grossed-up to take into account the taxes on the bonus itself.

Accelerating vs. deferring taxation

If the business grants an ownership stake to a key employee but then conditions that grant on future events or performance, those restrictions can cause the grant to be taxed in the future.  This would mean the income event to the key employee would happen later in time. This might be desired to eliminate the tax payment issue discussed above, but the collateral consequences would need to be weighed. For example, the company would not be able to deduct the amount of the grant until the key employee is required to take the amount into income. Furthermore, if the key employee wants to later sell the interest and obtain long-term capital gain treatment (which under current law affords a lower overall tax rate), the key employee will want to start the one-year holding period clock running sooner rather than later.

Section 83(b) elections

One way to accelerate the taxation and start that clock running is for the key employee to make an election under Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code to cause the grant to be taxed today, rather than waiting until the restrictions lapse in the future. If filed timely, the election will have the desired effect of causing the granted equity to be included in the employee’s income at the value of the property at the time of the grant. The company will obtain a compensation deduction, and the employee will need to consider the tax consequences described above. The trade-off is that the key employee can start the clock running on the long-term capital gain requirements. It should be noted, however, that not all equity grants or similar devices can make this election.

In conclusion, when a business looks to bring a key employee into the ownership ranks, whether for transition or for incentive, the features are often limitless. Some options fit certain circumstances better than others. Above all, however, both the business and the employee should weigh the tax consequences and benefits of the various options when making the choice.

Dan Eller, a shareholder with Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, is the leader of the firm’s tax service group and a member of its real estate and construction industry group. He assists clients with tax and business law issues. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

The post OP-ED: Tax issues affecting a transition to a key employee appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Many entrepreneurial owners face difficult decisions when they look to sell their businesses. For inventors, sometimes the most valuable assets they can sell are the patents and other proprietary know-how they created or obtained over the years.

Sales of patents bring into play many legal considerations. For example, if the patent is owned by an entity instead of the individual entrepreneur, the buyer may want to purchase the ownership interests of the entity (e.g., stock in a corporation or membership interests in a limited liability company) rather than the patent itself in order to obviate the need to transfer the title to the patent.

For this column, however, let’s consider a narrower set of issues: the potentially unintended consequences that may occur when, for whatever reason, the buyer and seller cannot agree on the terms of a “final” sale.

In some transactions, the buyer may desire to pay over a term of months or years. At the same time, the seller may want to retain the right to reacquire the patent or know-how in the event the buyer is unable to make one or more future payments. In these situations, the transaction may look more like a license of the technology than an outright sale.

From the seller’s perspective, a sale is usually preferred because the seller may be able to pay tax on the sale of the intellectual property at capital-gains rates, which are currently (in most cases) preferential to ordinary rates. Conversely, the buyer may prefer a license if the buyer’s license expenditures could be expenses instead of capitalized. That is because the buyer’s expenses may be deductible from income in the current period. Compare that to capital expenditures; in some cases, they may be subject to capitalization or amortization over many years.

Assuming that parties desire to structure the transaction as a sale for tax purposes, the issue that most commonly arises is how to determine the difference between a license and a sale. In making this determination, a number of factors must be considered.

Threshold among those factors is whether the buyer manifests an intent at the time of the transaction to transfer all of the buyer’s rights, title and interest in the intellectual property to the buyer. That being said, it is possible to retain one or more rights in the intellectual property, so long as the right(s) reserved is/are not “substantial” in relation to the other transferred rights.

Whether a right is “substantial” must be analyzed in each instance. For example, the buyer’s ability to reacquire the property in the event of the buyer’s inability to satisfy the purchase terms usually will not be considered a substantial right (i.e., such a right will not bar sale treatment).

Other factors that should be considered include ensuring the form of the agreement is that of a sale. In this regard, the most common potential pitfall I see is that agreements pertaining to the transfer of intellectual property with payments made over time, is the express characterization of the arrangement as a “license agreement.” Although it is true that substance may trump form, referring to a sales contract as a “license” can raise many questions about the nature of the transaction, including whether the buyer in fact intended to transfer the patent, or whether the payments are merely a stream of royalties instead of installment or contingent payments. For this reason, it is often important to avoid the term “license” at all costs if the parties intend the transaction to qualify for sale treatment, even though the terms license and royalties may be the standard parlance of the trade.

The buyer in its due diligence should verify whether it will own all incidents of ownership of the intellectual property. If the seller purports to be selling all of the seller’s rights, title, and interest in the property, but those are subject to obligations owed by the seller to a prior owner of the property, the transaction may not qualify as a sale. Although this is usually discoverable during the buyer’s review of the property’s title, the buyer should consider requiring the seller to represent and warrant the seller’s ownership of the property.

In summary, many owners looking at a business transition will want to sell patents or other know-how, either in a merger transaction with another entity or in an outright sale of the property. When this occurs, the parties to the transaction should carefully consider the substance and form of the transaction to ensure each obtains the mutually beneficial business and tax advantages of the transaction.

Dan Eller is a shareholder in the Portland office of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and a member of its business transitions group. He focuses on tax and business law, and advises clients in both transactional and controversy matters. Contact him at 503-796-3762 or deller@schwabe.com.

The post Tax consequences of selling patents as part of a transition appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.