Using Inverted Leases to Finance Renewable Energy Projects

Similar documents
Using Partnership Flips to Finance Renewable Energy Projects: Evaluating Tax Risks, Navigating IRS Safe Harbors

Using Partnership Flips to Finance Renewable Energy Projects: Evaluating Tax Risks, Navigating IRS Safe Harbors

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Brian E. Hammell, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, Boston

Property Management and Leasing Agreements: Key Provisions for Multi-Family, Office, Retail and Industrial Properties

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Survivor Benefit Plans and Military Divorce: Defending Against or Claiming Former-Spouse SBP Coverage

Commercial Lease Negotiations: Property and Liability Insurance, Proof of Coverage, AI and Loss Payee Issues

Completion Guaranties in Construction Lending: Key Provisions for Lenders and Guarantors

Solar Securitization: The Emergence of a New Funding Structure

Universal Health Services v. Escobar: Avoiding Implied Certification Liability Under FCA

Scott J. Bakal, Partner, Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago Robert C. Stevenson, Attorney, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Washington, D.C.

Solar Securitization: Leveraging Alternative Financing Without Jeopardizing Existing Investor Tax Breaks

ERISA Pre-Approved and Customized Benefit Plans: Overhauled IRS Procedures and Determination Letter Process

QDRO Drafting Boot Camp: Preparing QDROs for 401(k)s and Similar Defined Contribution Plans

Renewable Energy and Corporate PPAs: Overcoming Regulatory, Financing, Intercreditor, Tax Challenges

ERISA Retirement Plan Investment Management Agreements: Guidance for Plan Sponsors to Minimize Risks

Creatively Completing The Capital Stack: Real Estate GP Private Equity Funds

Asset Sale vs. Stock Sale: Tax Considerations, Advanced Drafting and Structuring Techniques for Tax Counsel

Allocating Operating Expenses in Commercial Real Estate Leases: Negotiating Strategies for Landlords and Tenants

Structuring Equity Compensation for Partnerships and LLCs Navigating Capital and Profits Interests Plus Section 409A and Tax Consequences

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

401(k) Plan Nondiscrimination Testing: Guidance for Employee Benefits Counsel

Structuring Equity Compensation for Partnerships and LLCs Navigating Capital and Profits Interests Plus Section 409A and Tax Consequences

Interest Rate Hedges in Real Estate Finance: Placing Swaps, Caps, and Collars on Floating Rate Loans

Exercising Setoff and Recoupment Rights in Bankruptcy

Clearing Title for Defects Due to Mortgage-Related Issues, Legal Description Errors, and Foreclosure

Allocating Risk in Real Estate Leases: Contractual Indemnities, Additional Insured Endorsements and Waivers of Subrogation

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: James O. Lang, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig, Tampa, Fla.

New Section 199A: Structuring Real Estate Transactions to Take Advantage of the Qualified Business Income Deduction

Estate Planning and Tax Reform: Wealth Transfer Structures Under the New Tax Law

Best Efforts and Commercially Reasonable Efforts in M&A Agreements: Drafting and Interpretation Challenges

UCC Article 9 Blanket Asset Lien Exclusions and Purchase Money Security Interests

Corporate Governance of Subsidiaries: Board Roles and Responsibilities, Interplay With Parent Board, Liability Risks

Opinion Letters in Commercial Real Estate Best Practices to Minimize Risk When Crafting Third Party Opinions on Loans and Acquisitions

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Scott D. Brooks, Partner, Cox Castle & Nicholson, San Francisco

M&A Indemnification Deal Terms: 2017 Survey Results

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Elizabeth A. Gartland, Esq., Fenwick & West, San Francisco

Insurance Coverage for Statutory and Liquidated Damages and Attorney Fees: Policyholder and Insurer Perspectives

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Matthew B. Grunert, Partner, Andrews Kurth Kenyon, Houston

Key Commercial Lease Provisions and SNDAs That Concern Lenders in Mortgage and Leasehold Financing

UCC Article 9 Blanket Asset Lien Exclusions and Purchase Money Security Interests

Private Investment Funds and Tax Reform

Distressed Loan Workouts: How Equity Cure Rights Work, Negotiating Loan Restructuring and Forbearance Agreements

ERISA Compliance and Monitoring 401(k) Investments: Safe Harbor Rules and Appointing Advisers

Master Service Agreements for Oil and Gas: Key Provisions, Court Treatment

Structuring Commercial Loan Term Sheets, Proposals and Commitment Letters: Key Terms for Lenders and Borrowers

Investment Adviser Advertising Rule: New SEC Guidance and Best Practices for Compliance

Fiduciary Compliance in ESOP Transactions: Recent DOL Settlement Agreements

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

ERISA Considerations in Structuring Credit Facilities with Private Investment Funds

Leveraging Earnings-Stripping Regs for Foreign Investments: Maximizing Tax Savings, Minimizing IRS Scrutiny

IP Agreements: Structuring Indemnification and Limitation of Liability Provisions to Allocate Infringement Risk

Zombie Corporations and CERCLA Liability: Identifying, Reviving and Pursuing Zombie PRPs

Trucking and Auto Injury Cases: Deposing Accident Reconstruction and Biomechanical Experts

Structuring Commercial Loan Documents to Protect Non-Affiliated Lenders

Fraudulent Conveyance Exposure for Intercorporate Guaranties, Integrated Transactions and Designated-Use Loans

Construction OCIP/CCIP Insurance Programs: Potential Coverage Gaps and Other Coverage Pitfalls

IP Agreements: Structuring Indemnification and Limitation of Liability Provisions to Allocate Infringement Risk

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Protecting Business Assets From Creditors in Litigation: Strategic Choice of Entities, Avoiding Fraudulent Transfers

Bank Affiliate Transactions Under Scrutiny Complying With Regulation W's Complex Restrictions on Business Dealings with Affiliate Institutions

Builder's Risk Insurance for Construction Projects: Legal Issues Evaluating Scope of Coverage and Resolving Coverage Disputes

Negotiating Reserve Provisions in Real Estate Loan Transactions

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Private Equity Real Estate Fund Formation: Capital Raising, Regulatory Issues and Negotiating Trends

High Volatility Commercial Real Estate Loans: Guidance for Developers and Lenders on HVCRE Rules and Loan Covenants

Foreign Investment in U.S. Real Estate: Impact of Tax Reform

Personal Injury Claims for Uber and Lyft Accidents: Navigating Complex Liability and Insurance Coverage Issues

Tax Allocation in Pass-Through Entities

Tax Challenges for NPO Counsel: Excess Benefit Transactions for Executive Comp and Other Financial Dealings

Asset-Based Lending: Navigating Borrowing Base, Article 9 Collateral Issues, and Key Loan Documentation Provisions

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Dean C. Berry, Partner, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, New York

Private Equity Waterfall and Carried Interest Provisions: Economic and Tax Implications for Investors and Sponsors

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

UCC Article 9 Update: Searching and Filing Under New Amendments

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Structuring Leveraged Loans After Tax Reform: Concerns for Multinational Entities

Structuring Preferred Equity Investments in Real Estate Ventures: Impact of True Equity vs. "Debt-Like" Equity

Data Breaches in ERISA Benefit Plans: Prevention and Response

Executive Compensation: Tax and Other Considerations for Restricted Stock Awards

Protecting Trademarks Abroad: Madrid Protocol vs. National Filing Directly in Foreign Jurisdiction

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a 90-minute encore presentation featuring live Q&A. Today s faculty features:

30(b)(6) Depositions in Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation Preparing and Responding to Notices of Corporate Representative Depositions

Springing the Delaware Tax Trap: Drafting Limited Powers of Appointment to Increase Asset Income Tax Basis

Auto Injury Claim Recovery: Maximizing Pain and Suffering, Loss of Future Earning Capacity Damages

Reporting Costs of Health Insurance on Employee W-2s: New Requirements

Real Estate Transactions With REITs: Selling, Leasing or Lending to a REIT

Minority Investors in LLCs: Contractual Limitations, Waivers of Fiduciary Duties, Other Key Provisions

Construction Builder's Risk and CGL Insurance: Scope of Coverage, Covered Losses, Exclusions, AI Endorsements

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

FCPA Due Diligence in M&A Amid Increased Enforcement

Mastering Form 8937 and Section 6045B:

M&A Buyer Protection Beyond Indemnification and Escrows

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Cash Management Structures, Waterfall Provisions and Reserves in Commercial Real Estate Finance Transactions

Transcription:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Using Inverted Leases to Finance Renewable Energy Projects Evaluating Tax Risks, Navigating Structural Variations, Leveraging Pass-Through Election WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Keith Martin, Partner, Chadbourne & Parke, Washington, D.C. Jorge Medina, Associate General Counsel Tax, Tesla Inc., San Mateo, Calif. The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-755-4350 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Inverted Leases Keith Martin kmartin@chadbourne.com Jorge Medina jorgemedina@tesla.com

Inverted leases are a structure used to raise tax equity for renewable energy projects. The structure is used mainly in the solar rooftop market. About 10% to 20% of tax equity transactions in that market today involve an inverted lease. 6

The other two tax equity structures are partnership flips and sale-leasebacks. All wind and other projects that rely on production tax credits use partnership flips. This is required by statute. Sale-leasebacks are somewhat more common in utility-scale projects, but far less common today than in the past. 7

The US government offers two tax benefits for renewable energy projects: a tax credit and depreciation. They amount to at least 56 per dollar of capital cost for the typical solar or wind project. Few developers can use them efficiently. Therefore, finding value for them is the core financing strategy for many US renewable energy companies. 8

Tax equity covers 20% to 85% of the cost of a project. The developer must fill in the rest of the capital stack with debt or equity. 9

Each of the tax equity structures raises a different amount of tax equity, allocates risk differently and imposes a deadline on when the tax equity investor must fund its investment. 10

Inverted leases raise the least amount of capital: roughly 20% to 42% of the capital stack. A partnership flip raises 35% to 50% of the typical solar project. A sale-leaseback raises in theory the full fair market value, but in practice, the developer is usually required to return 15% to 20% of the amount at inception as prepaid rent. 11

The developer may bear more tax risk with an inverted lease or sale-leaseback than a partnership flip. Developers in lease transactions are more likely to have to indemnify the tax equity investor for loss of tax benefits. Tax indemnities are usually more limited in partnership flips. In a flip, the tax equity investor simply sits on the deal with a large share of the economics until it reaches its target yield. 12

Sale-leasebacks buy the most time to raise tax equity. The tax equity investor must be in the deal before the project is put in service in both an inverted lease and partnership flip. A saleleaseback gives the developer up to three months after the project goes into service. 13

Drilling down into the details of inverted leases: they are a simple concept. Think of a yo-yo. A solar rooftop company assigns customer agreements and leases rooftop solar systems in tranches to a tax equity investor who collects the customer revenue and pays most of it to the solar company as rent. 14

The two tax benefits on the solar equipment are bifurcated. The solar company passes through the investment tax credit to the tax equity investor as lessee. It keeps the depreciation and uses it to shelter the rents paid by the tax equity investor. That's why the structure raises the least amount of capital. 15

Basic Inverted Lease 16

Solar rooftop companies like inverted leases because they get the equipment back when the lease ends without having to pay for it. 17

Another benefit is IRS regulations allow the investment tax credit to be calculated on the fair market value of the equipment rather than its cost. This "step up" in basis does not come at a cost to the solar company of a tax on a commensurate gain. There is no sale of the equipment that would trigger a tax. 18

The solar company can monetize the projected rents by borrowing "back-levered" debt. Such debt may be easier to put in place than a similar borrowing in a partnership flip structure. 19

Both solar companies and tax equity investors like the relatively short term of the financing. The primary disadvantages are it is a more complicated structure than the alternatives, does not raise as much capital, and fewer tax equity investors offer the structure. 20

The market was originally drawn to the structure in 2009 as a way for investors without tax capacity to continue doing deals during the Treasury cash grant era. The recent drop off in use of the structure is due to a variety of factors. 21

Not all sponsors can use the structure. Government agencies, tax-exempt entities, Indian tribes and real estate investment trusts cannot elect to pass through the investment tax credit to a lessee. 22

Normally when a solar company claims an investment tax credit, it must reduce its tax basis in the equipment for calculating depreciation by half the investment credit. In this case, the tax equity investor reports half the investment credit as income ratably over five years. inclusion assumptions Treas. Reg. 1.150-1T 23

Inverted leases have terms of seven to 24 years, depending on the counsel acting for the tax equity investor. Some tax counsel like to see a merchant tail, meaning the lease should run at least 20% longer than the customer agreements. In deals with long lease terms, the lessee usually has an option to cut the transaction short. 24

The tax equity investor must have upside potential and downside risk to be considered a true lessee. If there is no substance to its role as lessee, then it will not be able to claim the investment tax credit. Some of the big four accounting firms treat inverted lease transactions as loans rather than real leases. 25

Some tax counsel believe the tax equity investor is a real lessee based on market exposure if the lease runs longer than the customer agreements. Others focus on the amount of prepaid rent that is paid by the lessee and want to see at least 20% prepaid rent. However, too much prepaid rent can make the deal look like a loan. 26

In the more conservative deals, the tax equity investor has a hell-or-high-water obligation to pay fixed rents to the solar company. In some deals, part of the rent is contingent on output or lessee cash flow; contingent rent adds tax risk to the structure. The portion of the customer revenue that is retained by the lessee can vary substantially. 27

Solar companies have an interest in minimizing the share of customer revenue retained by the lessor. They prefer to monetize future revenue at a back-levered debt rate rather than a higher tax equity yield. Most tax equity investors require at least a 2% pre-tax yield. 28

There are no IRS guidelines for inverted leases, unlike partnership flips and sale-leasebacks. However, the structure is common in historic tax credit deals, and the IRS acknowledged it in guidelines in early 2014 to unfreeze the historic tax credit market after a US appeals court struck down an aggressive form of the structure in Historic Boardwalk. Rev. Proc. 2014-12 29

The central challenge in inverted leases is how the 20% to 45% of the capital stack raised by the structure moves from the tax equity investor to the solar company. In the conservative form of the structure, it moves from the lessee to lessor as prepaid rent. 30

In a more aggressive overlapping ownership structure, the tax equity investor makes a capital contribution to a lessee partnership, and the lessee makes a capital contribution of the amount to the lessor in exchange for a 49% interest in the lessor. The capital contribution may be distributed by the lessor partnership to the solar company tax free. The investor is able to claim not only the investment credit, but also 49% of the depreciation on the solar assets. 31

Overlapping Ownership Inverted Lease 32

In some transactions, the sponsor owns 100% of the lessor and takes a small interest in the lessee (1% to 5%) as managing member to allow the tax investor to avoid consolidating the lessee. 33

In some deals, a sponsor affiliate enters into a master installation agreement with the lessor to install solar systems as customer agreements are signed. More commonly, the sponsor contributes the equipment to the lessor which then leases it to the tax equity investor. 34

The sponsor still maintains the equipment under contract to the lessee and deals with the customers. It is the managing member in any lessee partnership. 35

In deals with a partnership in either the lessor or lessee position, there may be a flip down in the tax equity investor's interest and a call option for the sponsor to buy the investor's remaining interest after the flip or a withdrawal right for the tax equity investor or both. 36

Focusing on the tax treatment to each of the parties, the lessor must report the rent it receives as income, but has the depreciation as shelter. The lessee may prepay part of the rent. That part is treated as a "section 467 loan" and is reported by the lessor as income over time. 37

The lessee must report the revenue from customers as income. It deducts the rent paid to the lessor and claims an investment tax credit on the solar equipment. Any prepaid rent is deducted over the same period the lessor reports it as income. The lessee reports half the investment credit as income over five years. 38

The tax equity investor is locked in for five years. The "unvested" investment credit must be repaid to the US government if the lease terminates or the investor transfers its leasehold interest within five years after equipment is put in service. A transfer of the equipment by the lessor while it remains subject to the lease does not trigger recapture, unless the transfer is to someone like a government or tax-exempt entity that cannot elect to pass through investment credits. 39

The IRS and Treasury inspector general have probed into the inverted lease structure on audit, but not taken issue with it. Nevertheless, the structure is perceived as carrying more tax risk. 40

Many tax equity investors are limiting the percentage markup they are willing to see in fair market value above cost, although this is most common in utility-scale projects. Tax basis risk is borne in most deals by the sponsor. Tax loss insurance is being used in some solar tax equity transactions to avoid diversions of cash flow to cover tax indemnities, but it is expensive. 41

In general, tax risks about which the sponsor has special insight are borne by the sponsor. An example is facts that go to when a project was placed in service. Tax risks into which both the sponsor and tax equity investor have equal insight are borne by the tax equity investor. An example is whether the inverted lease structure works. 42

Risks into which neither party has special insight are usually a matter for negotiation. The biggest such risk this year is tax change risk. The risk is being put on sponsors, but the market is still feeling its way on how to address it. Some sponsors are insisting on claiming bonus depreciation to help mitigate the potential effects of tax law changes in 2018 and beyond. 43

Progress on tax reform has stalled while Congress waits for Trump to reveal what he wants. No one expects a completed tax bill on the president's desk before December 1 at the earliest. Lower tax rates are expected to be phased in starting next year because of cost. 44

There are six tax changes potentially in play that could affect the economics of inverted lease transactions. House Republican leaders have lined up behind a plan that would reduce the corporate tax rate to 20%, allow the full cost of new equipment to be deducted immediately, deny interest deductions, exempt export earnings from income taxes, and deny any cost recovery on imported goods and services. Congress could also change the existing phase-out schedule for the solar ITC, although this is not expected. 45

Some tax equity investors are already pricing deals using a 25% or 20% corporate tax rate. There is a one-time price reset at the end of 2018 or sooner after a tax overhaul bill clears Congress. A materially adverse proposed change in tax law not reflected in the pricing model is grounds to stop funding additional tranches. The parties debate at what stage in the legislative process it is appropriate to cut off further funding. imported equipment 46

Tax equity investors generally have an incentive to accelerate tax equity deals into 2017 when deductions can be taken against a 35% tax rate. However, this may be less true of inverted lease transactions where the depreciation remains with the solar company. 47

The lack of depreciation benefits makes tax reform somewhat less of an issue in inverted leases. In fact, without depreciation benefits, the investor s return is likely to increase significantly from a lower tax rate unless the ITC is overhauled by Congress. 48

Property taxes are an ever-present issue in transactions involving solar equipment in California. Any change in ownership of solar equipment after initial installation will trigger a property tax reassessment. Putting a tax equity partnership in place is not considered a change in ownership, but later exercise of a sponsor call option or investor put is. 49

Inverted Leases Keith Martin kmartin@chadbourne.com Jorge Medina jorgemedina@tesla.com 50