Cherrytree Group LLC Blog

Previous posts have discussed the differences between a tax deduction and a tax credit.  Transferability is the key distinction between the two.  While we all have deductions that we can take against our gross income, these deductions are personal to each individual.  

A tax credit is a direct credit against bottom line taxable income, and may be transferable to other taxpayers. There are restrictions to transferability based upon the type of tax credit, but in general, the portability of a tax credit has created a marketplace for the sale and transfer of many different types of tax credits. This is a very useful source of finance, equity, or reimbursement, especially in this economy.  

At The Cherrytree Group, we advise many clients on the use, transfer, and sale of their tax credits, but in developing a market for tax credits, it is important that clients consult with us prior to conducting a project, rather than in the latter stages of a transaction.  We can assist with developing the potential tax credit equity into a proposed budget or development pro-forma, which can lead to more control over financing costs.

Cherrytree has grown into a financial services company that has its own capital, credit lines and equity facilities, as well as a warehouse of tax credit buyers that include banks, insurance companies, Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations, and high net-worth individuals.  We have the capacity and capability to purchase your tax credits for our own account, or broker a sale of the tax credit to one of our buyers.  For more information on this process, contact The Cherrytree Group.

...by Warren Kirshenbaum


There are numerous cities across the United States which can be considered "cleantech capitals." With a large array of renewable resources, a dedication by businesses and homeowners to become more energy efficient, and a large hub for research and development, a lot can be accomplished when it comes to creating new, efficient and sustainable clean technologies. There are many factors that make up a "capital for cleantech," and although there are more than ten cities around the nation that are involved in clean technologies, here are six of the top cities.

1) Boston, Massachusetts. Boston is said to enjoy some of the most supportive policies in the United States for energy efficiency and renewable energy. After California, Boston is second in clean technology venture capital investments. With an environment that is ripe for cleantech startups, numerous companies are moving their business to Boston. The MIT Clean Energy Prize is a venture and innovation creation competition that encourages clean energy innovation. Its objective is to provide educational opportunities and supply incentives to ventures demonstrating the clean energy affordability. As well, the development of MIT's cleantech incubator will provide Boston with more access to cleantech flow, increasing the demands for all future building to be constructed in accordance to LEED standards set up by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2) San Jose, California. San Jose, part of California's Silicon Valley, has been very productive in clean technologies. The city has expanded a number of clean technology investments and because of the research and development institutions in the area, many cleantech companies are coming to make their home in San Jose. San Jose's, "Long-time leadership in engineering know-how, combined with semi-conductor, nanotechnology and optics R&D gives it a leg up in renewable energy development, particularly in solar energy applications." San Jose is also home to the Environmental Business Cluster, a non-profit technology commercialization center assisting startup cleantech companies developing goods and services to positively impact the environment.

3) Austin, Texas. Austin has long been Texas' hub for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power, as well as fuel cell technologies. Its commitment to the environment and sustainability has made it not only a national cleantech player, but a global one as well. Austin is home to some of the largest cleantech companies on a global level. A large research and development hub, the University of Texas at Austin has created several research expenditures to elevate research into energy efficiency and renewable energy. This includes a project by the College of Natural Sciences to create biofuel from blue-green algae and hybrid-electric automobile programs developed by The Center for Electromechanics.

4) San Francisco, California. California is one of the top cleantech states in the United States and it is cities like San Francisco that makes it happen. Currently, San Francisco is well on its way to becoming the first city to be completely run by renewable energy by the year 2020. With projects like Sunset Reservoir Solar Project, which is the largest municipal solar facility in the state, and a new $250,000 grant to increase renewable energy capabilities.
 
5) Seattle, Washington. Seattle has been leaving its mark in cleantech society by increasing the need for green standards. The Green Building Sustainable Communities Program, for example, creates city projects that meet sustainable outcomes. Tax breaks and loans are provided to businesses and residences that utilize green practices. Seattle has been a leader in using their garbage to get electricity. They have invested into electricity from garbage landfills.
 
6) Chicago, Illinois. Over 20 percent of total power in Chicago is coming from renewable sources. Due to the increase in the need for renewable energy and energy efficiency, Chicago has been able to create numerous job opportunities while, at the same time, increasing solar power and saving on CO2 emissions. Chicago is also becoming one of the major investment locations for international businesses. Chicago also has a number of green initiatives, including the Chicago Green Office Challenge.

Kirshenbaum Law and Cherrytree Group LLC can help you structure your tax credit transaction. Let us guide you through the process of applying for and securing renewable energy tax credits. These transactions typically require a lawyer, a consultant, and a syndicator, and Cherrytree Group and Kirshenbaum law can act in all three capacities, saving you time and money on your transaction.

The original article was written by Shawn Lesser, and can be seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03 /28/idUS317857292020110328

....by Warren Kirshenbaum

Acquiring capital for real estate investments is a difficult and daunting task in this weak economy.  The uncertainty of the real estate market has become a strong barrier between investors and real estate developers, leaving developers with very few options for obtaining capital.  The absence of eager/willing investors has prompted real estate developers to seek innovative means of financing.  One attractive source of financing is through foreign investment that is generated through the EB-5 Green Card program.  EB-5 is part of the Immigration Act of 1990 established for the purpose of attracting foreign capital to the United States.  Under this program, 10,000 green cards are set aside every year for qualifying candidates.  A qualified candidate must satisfy three basic requirements in order to be considered for approval.  These basic requirements include 1) establishing a U.S. business or investing in an existing business that was created or structured after November 19, 1990, 2) the foreign national must have invested $1 million in the business or $500,000 when investing in targeted employment areas and 3) the newly created business must create full time employment for 10 U.S. workers for a specified amount of time.  Once these requirements are met, the EB-5 investors must also demonstrate that they, their spouses and their children under the age of twenty-one have resided in the U.S. for two years by means of conditional visas.  

The EB-5 Program promotes the infusion of foreign capital into the American economy. This benefits real estate developers seeking additional investment capital for their projects.  The U.S. developer can obtain financing from the foreign investor in order to commence or complete local development projects.  This is a great opportunity for American developers to secure capital for their projects in an economy where banks are denying loans and U.S. investors are reluctant to invest in new endeavors.  The program not only benefits U.S. developers, but also offers incentives to foreign investors desiring to live out the American dream.  In exchange for the investor’s capital being put to work in the U.S., they receive green cards for themselves and their families as long as all of the program requirements are met.  This is a win-win situation for both the U.S. developer and the foreign investor in achieving their goals of real estate investment/development and expedited permanent residency status, respectively.  

EB-5 applicants invest foreign capital through Regional Centers that have varying investments programs.  The Regional Center may be a state government agency, a corporation or a private venture.  Companies or private entities that are approved EB-5 Regional Centers can directly contact foreign investors who are interested in participating in the immigration program. The Regional Center must verify that the investor’s capital was earned through lawful activity; otherwise it cannot be utilized for the program.  Once all of the required elements are met, the Regional Center can begin the application process for the foreign investor.  Don’t know where there is a regional Center? The Cherrytree Group can help you find one in your area.

At the Cherrytree Group we have extensive knowledge in structuring investments to achieve the optimal return on investment. The EB-5 provides valuable investment to new real estate development projects.

REITs - Real Estate Investing Minus the Headaches

By Warren Kirshenbaum

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) have traditionally offered many advantages to investors looking to the real estate market for diversification and tax advantages.

They generally have higher yields and lower portfolio turnover than stocks or stock funds, plus they have the potential for capital gains.

As real estate bottomed, the rumor was that REITs had come and gone. But more likely, the weak housing market may have opened the door for smaller investors to participate in the short- and long-term gains offered by REITs -- which is especially appealing to the many investors who can't afford to buy a home or who aren't interested in owning physical property.

How REITs Work

REITs are created to hold a pool of managed real estate properties or mortgages. The REIT itself is not actively managed, relying instead on a set portfolio of preselected properties that is maintained for the duration of the trust. When the trust matures, the portfolio is reset according to the REIT's investment objectives. Each trust is considered to be a distinct security, with each unit in the REIT constituting a proportional share of ownership in each asset held within the trust.

REITs tend to focus more on value than growth. Historically, REITs have provided higher yields than other types of fixed-income securities, making them attractive holdings for moderate income investors. They tend to be more immune to market volatility than stocks or stock funds because of their correlation with the real estate sector.

Categories of REITs

There are three basic categories of REITs: equity, mortgage and hybrid.

Equity REITs receive rental income from the properties held within the trust as well as the capital gains from property sales. These three different streams of income make equity REITs the most desirable of the three.

Mortgage REITs are considered to be riskier than equity REITs because of their vulnerability to changes in interest rates. As with all other fixed-income securities, the value of mortgage REITs can drop substantially if interest rates rise.

Hybrid REITs are a combination of equity and mortgage REITs. There are several different varieties of hybrid REITs: some are open-ended securities, while others are closed-ended; some have a limited life span, while others are perpetual. They can also be invested in as little as one property, although they are usually invested in a group of properties.

Taxation of REITs at the Trust Level

The IRS requires REITs to follow specific rules of taxation. First, they are taxed as a trust, and unitholders pay tax on the income they receive. In most cases, little or no income is held at the trust level, and usually 100% of the income is passed on to investors.

The IRS requires that REITs distribute at least 90% of the income generated by the trust’s portfolio to unit holders. However, they must follow the same method of self-assessment that corporations are required to use. This means that REITs have to obey the same valuation and accounting rules as corporations, but pass cash flow (instead of profits) directly through the trust to unitholders.

In most cases, REITs are generally exempt from taxation at the trust level provided they distribute at least 90% of their income to their unit holders. Even some REITs that adhere to this rule will still face corporate taxation on any retained income, depending upon the provisions spelled out in the initial trust indenture.

The taxation of REITs differs from that of other unit investment trusts. Because the government considers them to be the business of managing properties, rental income is treated as business income to REITs. Therefore, all expenses related to rental activities managed by the trust are deductible, just as business expenses can be written off by a corporation.

How Will You be Taxed on Income From a REIT?

Because they are rarely taxed at the trust level, REITs usually pay larger dividends than stocks, which can only pay dividends after being taxed at the corporate level.

For the most part, REIT dividends are taxed to the unitholder as ordinary income just like stock mutual fund dividends. This means that you will pay tax on these dividends at your marginal tax rate.

However, some REIT dividends are classified as “qualified” dividends, which are a special type of dividend taxed at the more favorable capital gain rates. Some of the dividends you receive from your REIT may also be considered a non-taxable return of capital. When this happens, your taxable income from the REIT is reduced accordingly for the year. Return of capital distributions reduce your cost basis and you will not pay tax on return of capital distributions until the REIT matures or you sell it.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

The Federal Reserve's plan to purchase $600BN in US Treasuries has wide ranging consequences, including the devaluing effect that the influx of such a large amount of dollars will have on the dollar itself. A devalued dollar makes US produced goods cheaper, causing exports to rise. As a deficit nation, the US benefits from an increase in exports, but it comes at the expense of other countries. Therefore, this plan has been roundly criticized by many countries who claim that the US is manipulating its currency, and as the issuer of a global reserve currency such as the dollar the US has a responsibility to keep the dollar fairly valued. It is certainly an interesting position for currency manipulating countries like China to take, but nonetheless this is the position they are taking, and as we will discuss below their influence on our domestic interest rate environment is significant.

So, what effect will the Fed plan have on mortgage rates? As the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been to keep the Federal Funds rate at less than 1% for some time now, long term interest rates have remained low. Mortgages are generally priced off the 30 year Treasury bond, which is currently yielding 4.25%. Average 30 year fixed mortgages are pricing at 4.625%. In that a bond's yield increases as the price of the bond decreases, if the prices of US Treasuries decline, then yields will increase. Bond prices have been trending higher for several days now on concerns of inflation and uncertainty about the Fed's plan to buy treasuries.

So let us analyze this situation. As a deficit nation, we spend more than we receive. The only way to sustain such behavior is to borrow funds to finance the shortfall. Many nations have large stockpiles of US dollars from trading with us, and many more hold their reserves in dollar denominated assets. These dollars need to be put to work, and the value of dollar denominated assets need to remain steady for these countries to continue to run surpluses which are need to finance their economic growth, provide infrastructure and provide basic services for its citizenry. Therefore, there are a large number of countries buying US debt in the form of US treasuries. If other countries, like China decide that the US economy is shaky and they reduce their purchases of treasuries, or even begin to sell off the treasuries they currently own, bond prices would fall and yields will increase. That would mean that other countries would be unwilling to finance our debt at the same levels as they have been. In that case, with the Fed itself buying US treasuries, there will not be an excess supply of treasuries, which will keep their prices steady, or even cause an increase in bond prices. It would appear, however, that if we were in a deficit to begin with, the only way the Fed could buy treasuries would be to print more money to do so, which will improve the cash position of the US but deflate the dollar, and obligate us to greater borrowing costs. An increase in the US cash position, together with an increase in exports could have a formidable effect on our current account surplus and reduce our deficit, but clearly we are devaluing the dollar and annoying our trading partners whose point is well taken. They say that the US should be able to increase its exports by improving its competitiveness not devaluing its currency. Nevertheless, this seems to be a short term plan on the part of the Fed. Basically, increased export production can lead to the creation of jobs, and a lowering of the unemployment rate, which leads to a rise in consumer confidence. Mortgage rates and other borrowing costs could increase, which would lead to manufacturing price increases and, therefore, an increase in the prices of consumer goods, i.e. inflation.

So we are trading deficit reduction and job creation for inflation and higher borrowing costs. What all of this will do for our businesses and economic outlook is anyone's guess, but it is certainly shaping up to be a challenging time period.

By Warren Kirshenbaum

In the recent election, Question 2 on the Massachusetts ballot asked whether voters should “repeal the law allowing developers of projects that include low- or moderate-income housing to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board” The law in question is M.G.L. Chapter 40B, which is an expedited permitting statute. Chapter 40B creates an expedited permitting procedure for those developers that include an affordable component to their development. Specifically, in order to receive a permit under 40B, 25% of the housing units to be built must be considered affordable housing. The towns in the Commonwealth that are subject to 40B are those towns whose affordable housing stock does not exceed 10% of their total housing inventory. 40B subjects the Zoning Board to a streamlined procedure greatly reducing the time and cost of the permitting procedure, and limiting the ability of the town to deny the permit.

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Massachusetts voters, in a decisive victory of 58% to 42% voted not to repeal 40B.

This trend in the voting patterns comports with conversations that I had with people, in which it seemed that there was a lot of non-information, and even misinformation on this issue, and as this movement to repeal 40B could resurface again, I am hoping to shed some light on the issue in this post.

The main underlying issue that I sensed is the NIMBY one. Not in My Back Yard is understandable, and is a concern about falling property values and the denigration of a neighborhood when some of the housing is affordable. Declining property values is indeed a fallout of affordable housing, as the financing options discussed below are very favorable to developers or affordable buyers and, therefore, their properties. These affordability factors lower the market value of a single family home, or a multifamily property, and, therefore, affect the comps of other sellers in the area. This effect is a micro-economic effect, and a relatively minor one at that, as lower comps would affect a financing appraisal in small part, and the market value of a sale with even less consequence. In any event, 40B historically has mostly been used for multi-family construction, and 95% of the projects permitted under 40B are multi-family apartment complexes or condos.

Practically speaking, if a condo development were built near your home, whether it was affordable or market-rate your property value and property enjoyment would decline, so this is not an affordable housing, or 40B issue, as much as it is a land-use or urban planning issue.

Secondly, people I spoke to understood 40B to be a financing statute, and assumed that it gave developers funding to pursue their affordable housing projects. 40B is an expedited permitting statute that allows an override of municipal zoning authority to promote affordable housing. It is not a financing statute. There are forms of financing that are available to developers of affordable housing, such as the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, HUD insured mortgages, tax-exempt bonds, Community Block Grants, and other state and federal sources of funding, and developers use these sources of funding once they are permitted, whether pursuant to 40B or otherwise. 40B is not a preamble to these sources of financing.

While realizing that concern over retaining a leafy suburban lifestyle, or holding on to a paper appraisal of a home value may be important to some in the micro-economic sense, it is not a positive economic trend in the big picture that justifies the repeal of a statute such as 40B. Consider this: a community is more than just our home values; it is a collection of individuals, families, homes, stores, houses of worship, and so forth. While we are happy when we see a fire truck scooting off to tame a brush fire near our neighbor’s yard, we would be foolish to attempt to exclude the possibility that the first responders on the fire-truck also be given the opportunity to live among us in our community by creating affordable options here, and not force them to be relegated to living in a far-off town for affordability reasons.

It should also be pointed out since its enactment, 40B has been credited with spurring upwards of 80% of the new development in Massachusetts, and there are several new developments, as well as many ongoing ones that would not have been built, or will not now be completed were 40B to be repealed, or if it didn’t exist in the first place. This construction has created jobs, spending, and economic activity that we rely on for our stability, and, particularly in our economic malaise, we can little afford to repeal a statute that has created such substantial growth and employment.

The Citizens Housing and Planning Association (“CHAPA”), a prominent Massachusetts non-profit that plays a decisive role in encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing claimed that this vote evidenced the largest victory margin of any ballot campaign. CHAPA claimed that, “over 1.2 million voters and 80% of cities and towns affirmed their support for protecting the affordable housing law for seniors and working families in urban, suburban, and rural communities all across the state.” While this is true, an analysis of the voting results shows that the larger urban centers voted strongly in favor of not repealing 40B, constituting the largest slice of the 16% victory margin, while the voting in many towns was closer than this 16% victory margin suggests. Many towns actually voted in favor of repeal. Cities and towns such as Worcester, Somerville, Quincy, Arlington, Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, New Bedford and Cambridge opposed repealing 40B in large numbers, and they were joined by the suburban bastions of Newton, Needham, Lexington, Brookline, and Milton, which all together carried the NO vote on this question. Significantly, however, there were also several towns that voted to repeal 40B, such as Abington, Amesbury, Billerica, Bridgewater, Sudbury, Stoughton, Wilmington, Westford, Chelmsford, Tewksbury, Walpole, and Canton.

... by Warren Kirshenbaum

It is my opinion that banks really do not have much incentive to lend money. Banks can borrow money from the Fed at rates that approximate zero, and they can then purchase US Treasuries and return a 3 point spread with little to no risk. Accordingly, why would they be willing to incur the time consumption of due diligence, the transaction expenses, and the inherent risk of loaning money to consumers and businesses when they can be profitable borrowing from the Fed, lending to each other, and engaging in hedging transactions. Nevertheless, as their apparent mandate is to take in deposits and then loan those funds out to borrowers while maintaining a reserve of funds to maintain net capital requirements, they need to put some money out to work in loan transactions but their documents, loan covenants, underwriting requirements, equity requirements, and debt-service coverage ratios are very restrictive, and in some cases are either unprofitable for borrowers or are putting businesses in the position of having to run business decisions by their bankers prior to accessing necessary working capital or credit line funding. I have been promoting for some time now that businesses need to create their own sources of funding, in order to decrease their reliance on bank financing, which is fast becoming a scarce resource. Private equity or corporate debt issuance is a viable option in these economic times, and I urge businesses of all sizes and levels of growth and development to formulate a plan to tap their non-bank resources for capital funding.

Interestingly, a midterm election that changes the majority party in Congress, such as the 2010 Midterm elections did can have a profound effect on the business plans of many different types of companies. For example, those businesses that supply the defense industry may find that under a Republican controlled Congress there are more dollars appropriated to defense spending, and will benefit from such a political change. Those businesses that are non-unionized may find that a Democratic Congress or state administration would be more favorable to union labor and open-shop employers may find that the cost of labor would dramatically increase, effectively turning a company’s cash flow upside down. Any of these factors would cause a company to need to seek financing to smooth out the edges while it re-formulates its business plan and carves out new market niches for itself.

My message is that if you are hoping to seek bank financing, you should add to your quiver of options the possibility of raising funds using private equity, or by issuing corporate bonds or debt instruments. As you are setting the terms of the offering or issuance you are in more of a position to control and accept provisions, terms, covenants and this will be beneficial to your business interests, and that will spur, and not hamper or restrict growth. We, as small business people are in need of capital and funding to execute many, if not most of the objectives of our business plans, but the sources of capital have become restrictive, unwieldy, and stifling. It is time to change the terms of this game, and look for alternate sources of funding.

Business Financing in a new economy ... by Warren Kirshenbaum

Back in March, 2010, I wrote in a blog post that we are facing a period of increased unemployment, and a sea change in our economy.  We are now in that new economy, an economy that has lost millions of jobs during this recession; jobs that in all likelihood will not come back.  Increased health care costs, taxes, data privacy concerns, payroll costs and employee benefits are a major discouragement to hiring new employees and creating jobs, while technological advances have made it easier to outsource job functions than to hire more employees.  

As I have said before, the jobs that have been lost in this recession are not going to come back.  Larger companies will expand by acquisition, and not job creation, and smaller companies will try to remain small.  Jobs are being created by new businesses, not existing businesses. These new jobs are in different fields, and workers will need new skills. Therefore, it is my opinion that new jobs will not be created in great numbers in this post-recession economy, but rather that businesses facing an uptick in demand for their products and services will add a variety of outsourced services to make up what in the past would have constituted an increase in hiring.  Additionally, the financial marketplace itself is in flux. Most recently, the Federal Reserve Bank has been indicating that it will increase its balance sheet by approximately $500 billion by purchasing assets and government bonds in an effort to reduce inflation and lower unemployment.  Analysts have speculated that we will end this year with unemployment rising above 10% from its current level of 9.6%, which does not bode well for consumer confidence and politicians running for re-election. Similarly, banks tend to restrict lending practices in such an economic climate.  

An expansion in the number of startup businesses, and a forced increase in entrepreneurship will cause our future economic expansion to come from the new small businesses that will be formed to service the increased demand for outsourced services in the marketplace.  Obtaining the necessary financing for these new businesses will be a challenge with the restrictive manner in which banks are currently underwriting loans.  The tightening of underwriting standards and the contraction in the supply of available capital financing does not, however, only affect small businesses and startups.  As I mentioned in a previous post, larger businesses are, and should be searching for alternatives to bank financing due to the restrictive and somewhat anti-business loan covenants and provisions that are making their way into financing agreements.  Simultaneously, with interest rates on savings accounts and money market funds being close to zero, and the volatility of the stock market discouraging households from investing, there will be fewer places to invest funds and receive a return that keeps up with the rate of inflation.  Private investment will, therefore, become a far greater resource for business funding, and businesses, as well as investors, will become far more comfortable in seeking and finding investments that are sensible, meet their expectations and risk tolerance.  Private investment will fill this void.  Raising capital in a private placement, investing into a private equity fund, private lending between individuals or small groups of individuals and companies will become more prevalent and necessary in our new economy.

The Cherrytree Group and Kirshenbaum Law Offices have extensive experience in advising clients on structuring and completing private equity offerings.  We can provide creative solutions to the most complex issues in evaluating, structuring, negotiating, and consummating private equity transactions.