Have you considered how a seemingly technical tax tweak could reshape the way you finance, manage, and value real estate investments?
Real Estate Roundtable Supports Removal of Look-Through Rule – Tax Notes
You are reading about a policy shift that matters if you own, manage, finance, advise on, or invest in commercial real estate. The Real Estate Roundtable’s public support for removing the so-called “look-through” rule—reported in Tax Notes and discussed across tax policy circles—signals a potential change in how tax law treats entity boundaries and the flow of interest, income, and losses. This article explains why the issue matters, what the look-through rule is in practical terms, the arguments for and against its removal, and what you should do now to prepare.
Executive summary
You need a clear, concise picture before you dig into the technicalities. The look-through rule effectively requires that, in certain circumstances, tax officials treat payments, ownership attributes, or tax items as if they flowed through an entity to its owners, rather than remaining at the entity level. The Real Estate Roundtable argues that removing this rule would reduce complexity, improve capital formation, and better align tax results with commercial realities in the real estate industry. Opponents worry about revenue loss, opportunities for tax avoidance, and the need for alternative anti-abuse measures. For you, the practical effects could include different allocation of interest deductions, changes in financing practices, shifts in entity selection, and new compliance priorities.
Translating the multilingual note in the article details
The article details you provided included a multilingual cookie and consent notice from Google. Translated and condensed into plain English, the message is: before you continue, you may be asked to sign in and to accept cookies and data uses. Cookies are used to deliver and maintain services, protect against fraud, measure engagement, and personalize content and ads. You can accept all cookies or reject some for personalized uses, and you can adjust privacy settings at any time. A language selector appears with many language options. This translation is provided so you can focus on the substantive tax issue rather than the consent notice.
What is the look-through rule?
You should understand the look-through rule conceptually before considering its tax consequences. At its core, the look-through rule requires that certain tax consequences be applied as if the entity’s owners had directly received payments or held assets, thereby “looking through” the entity’s veil for tax purposes. The rule can appear in many contexts: interest deductibility rules, withholding tax, related-party transactions, and distribution characterization. Its common function is to prevent entities from hiding the economic substance of transactions by sheltering them at the entity level.
You should also recognize that “look-through” is a term of art, but its application differs across sections of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. In some cases it prevents double deduction or double non-recognition. In others, it treats a payment from a partnership to a related party as if it were paid to the partner, affecting withholding, character, or limitation computations.
Why the Real Estate Roundtable supports removal
You will hear several practical reasons why an industry group such as the Real Estate Roundtable favors getting rid of the look-through rule in certain tax contexts. Their arguments generally rest on three pillars: reduced complexity, improved access to capital, and alignment with business realities.
- Reduced complexity: You know your tax filings and compliance already feel like an exercise in cartography—mapping flow-throughs, allocations, and adjustments. The Roundtable contends that the look-through rule increases transactional complexity and compliance costs for real estate businesses and their lenders. Removing it would simplify tax reporting and reduce disputes with the IRS over characterization.
- Improved access to capital: Lenders price risk and tax frictions. When tax rules cause uncertain treatment of interest, income, or basis, financing terms tighten or become more expensive. The Roundtable argues that removing the look-through rule would make debt and equity arrangements cleaner, thereby lowering borrowing costs and increasing liquidity for real estate development and operations.
- Aligning tax with economic reality: Real estate transactions often involve layered ownership—operating partnerships, holding companies, and special purpose vehicles. The Roundtable argues that in many cases the entity-level treatment better reflects commercial relationships, and that looking through creates artificial distortions that lawmakers did not intend.
You should understand that these claims are pitched from an industry perspective; they reflect how the industry perceives its needs and frictions. If you are an owner or operator, you are likely to value predictability and lower transaction costs. If you are a policymaker, you will weigh those benefits against concerns about loopholes and revenue.
The policy rationale against removal
You need to consider the counterarguments: removal is not costless, and lawmakers and commentators will press you to evaluate trade-offs. Opponents of removing look-through provisions typically focus on three concerns: revenue loss, potential for tax sheltering, and erosion of anti-abuse rules.
- Revenue loss: Congress and Treasury use rules like look-through to curb tax base erosion. Removing them may reduce tax receipts if taxpayers can more easily shift income, accelerate deductions, or recharacterize transactions. You should accept that budgetary impacts matter politically.
- Tax avoidance opportunities: The look-through rule prevents certain arrangements that would otherwise enable taxpayers to claim inappropriate benefits. Without it, creative taxpayers—or aggressive advisors—might design structures that achieve unintended tax advantages, prompting the need for alternative anti-abuse rules.
- Enforcement and fairness: If removal produces disparate outcomes across taxpayer types, lawmakers may question whether the change favors large, well-advised commercial entities over smaller owners who lack access to sophisticated tax planning.
You should expect that if removal moves forward, Treasury and Congress will consider substitute safeguards—more targeted anti-abuse rules, reporting requirements, or thresholds intended to preserve revenue and fairness.
What this change means for real estate transactions
You are likely to experience concrete effects in multiple familiar transaction zones: financing structures, partnership allocations, REIT compliance, and basis determination. Below are focused explanations of the most consequential areas.
Financing and debt arrangements
If the look-through rule goes away, you will find lenders responding to a different risk calculus. You should anticipate changes in loan covenants, intercreditor agreements, and use of guarantees.
- Lenders may loosen or reshape covenants where historic look-through rules created uncertainty about where interest is deductible or how repayments were characterized. You might benefit from improved terms.
- On the other hand, if removal opens perceived tax arbitrage possibilities, lenders could demand more explicit borrower-level protections—guarantees, collateral, or enhanced reporting—to preserve recoverability.
- Syndicated loans and CMBS documents will likely be revised to reflect the new tax treatment; you should expect negotiation points over who bears tax risks and how any retrospective adjustments are handled.
Partnership tax allocations and transfers
Partnerships are ubiquitous in real estate. You should understand how look-through removal affects allocation of interest deductions, determination of taxable income, and partner-level reporting.
- You might see fewer instances where the partnership is treated as a conduit for partner-level attributes. That could mean interest and income recognized at the entity level without immediate partner attribution.
- Transfers of partnership interests may change in tax treatment if there is no look-through to allocate certain items upon distributions or liquidations, which affects sale modeling, waterfall calculations, and net proceeds.
- The valuation of carried interests and promoted interest structures could shift, because the tax timing and character of income affect present value and after-tax returns.
REITs and publicly traded investment vehicles
You should pay special attention if you interact with REITs or REIT-owned partnerships. REITs operate under strict distribution and income tests. Changes to look-through rules can alter how income and dividends are characterized.
- REIT-compliant structures might be adjusted if removal changes the way passive income is computed or how interest expense is allocated between REIT entities and their subsidiaries.
- If removal makes it easier for REITs to segregate entity-level tax attributes, some sponsors may recombine ownership forms differently to preserve REIT qualification or to optimize shareholder distributions.
- You should consult REIT counsel about possible ripple effects on qualifying income tests and prohibited transactions.
Basis, depreciation, and loss limitation interactions
You should not treat the look-through rule in isolation. Its removal will interact with basis determinations, depreciation schedules, and loss limitation regimes such as at-risk and passive loss rules.
- Entity-level treatment can affect how you compute partner or shareholder basis following contributions and distributions. That, in turn, changes loss utilization and the timing of tax benefits from depreciation and amortization.
- If look-through previously required allocating interest deductions to owners for basis purposes, removing it might slow basis growth at the partner level while leaving deductions at the entity level, affecting future tax capacity to use losses.
Example: a simplified model showing potential impact
You should appreciate the mechanics through a short numerical illustration. This is a simplified example to clarify direction, not a substitute for tax advice.
Scenario:
- A partnership (P) owns a commercial building.
- P borrows $10 million at 5% interest to fund operations and improvement.
- P has two equal partners, A and B, each with a 50% interest.
Under a look-through regime:
- Interest expense may be treated as if related to partners in certain computations (e.g., partner-level limitations or withholding contexts), affecting partner-level deductions or allocations based on partner attributes.
If look-through is removed:
- The interest deduction remains at entity level for tax calculations tied to entity obligations.
- Partners report their allocated share of taxable income per partnership rules, but the immediate characterization for some limitations or thresholds changes.
Impact:
- Your cash tax position might be similar in some reporting contexts, but financing covenants, partner-level basis calculations, and withholding obligations could differ. You should model both scenarios for any significant financing or transfer.
Table: Current look-through application versus removal — conceptually compared
You will find this comparative table helpful for grasping the practical contrasts.
| Area of Application | With Look-Through Rule | Without Look-Through Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Interest characterization | May be attributed to owners in specified contexts | Remains at entity level for those contexts |
| Withholding obligations | Could be triggered at owner level if payments are treated as distributed | Withholding may remain at entity level or be unchanged |
| Basis adjustments | Owner basis may be increased/decreased based on look-through items | Basis may be computed primarily from entity-level allocations as usual |
| Compliance complexity | Higher due to tracing and attribution rules | Potentially lower, but new anti-abuse rules could add complexity |
| Impact on financing | Lenders demand protections for owner-level uncertainty | Lenders may simplify or demand different protections |
| Revenue implications | Designed to prevent tax avoidance and protect revenue | Potential revenue loss unless offset by other measures |
You should read the table as directional. The precise tax effect depends on statutory language, Treasury regulations, and administrative guidance.
Administrative and compliance implications
You are going to face immediate questions about how retroactive or prospective any change will be. Implementation timing and transitional rules matter for your current transactions and closed deals.
- Retroactivity: If Congress or Treasury implements removal with retroactive effect, you could see amended returns, potential tax refunds, or additional liabilities. Retroactivity is politically sensitive, and you should watch carefully for transition rules.
- Reporting changes: Expect adjusted Form instructions, K-1 reporting shifts, and possible changes to withholding forms and procedures. You must be prepared to update internal tax software and team processes.
- Audit focus: The IRS will likely issue guidance clarifying the scope of removal and any anti-abuse provisions. You should anticipate an initial period where audit activity focuses on the new perimeter between entity- and owner-level treatment.
Anti-abuse and alternative safeguards
You should not assume removal will mean a free pass for tax arbitrage. Policymakers will likely pair removal with targeted anti-abuse measures designed to preserve revenue while reducing the compliance burden.
- Strict disclosure requirements: Lawmakers may require more detailed reporting of related-party arrangements, debt allocation, and intercompany obligations to maintain transparency.
- Safe-harbor thresholds: Reforms might include thresholds below which the old look-through regime remains, protecting small owners while relieving burden on large institutional structures.
- Specific anti-abuse clauses: Treasury might draft rules that look at substance over form, economic substance requirements, or thin capitalization rules to prevent shifting interest deductions without economic change.
You should pay attention to the precise language of any anti-abuse measures. Their scope could be narrow and targeted, or they could be broad and disruptive to conventional deal-making.
What you should do now — practical steps
You are likely preparing for several potential outcomes. The following action items will keep you proactive:
- Review your organizational documents and loan agreements
- You should identify clauses that reference tax treatment, representations about tax status, and indemnities related to allocations. These will likely need renegotiation or clarification.
- Update financial models and valuation assumptions
- Tax timing and character affect NPV calculations. You should stress-test deal models under both regimes and quantify the sensitivity to tax treatment changes.
- Engage tax counsel and lenders early
- You should begin dialogue with your lenders and advisors about how they would like to address the change. Early alignment can prevent costly renegotiations later.
- Strengthen documentation of economic substance
- Given potential anti-abuse scrutiny, you should maintain records that show economic reality—capital contributions, guarantees, and cash flows—to support reported positions.
- Monitor legislative and Treasury developments
- You should institute a monitoring cadence to watch for bills, Treasury notices, and IRS guidance. Regulatory timelines will determine your implementation strategy.
You should note that acting now does not mean reacting rashly; it means preparing intelligent, flexible positions.
Impact on different stakeholders
The outcomes will not be uniform across the real estate ecosystem. Your perspective will depend on whether you are a developer, institutional investor, lender, small owner, or advisor.
- Developers and sponsors: You may benefit if removal streamlines syndication and joint-venture structures. You should prepare to renegotiate waterfalls and carried interest provisions where tax timing changes alter effective splits.
- Institutional investors: You likely will analyze after-tax returns and appreciate reduced volatility from fewer tax surprises. You should still evaluate whether removal affects your appetite for leverage in certain asset types.
- Lenders and servicers: You will revisit credit documents and collateral structures. Operationally, you should ready underwriting systems to handle new tax risk allocations.
- Small owners: You might benefit from simpler reporting, but you must guard against unintended consequences if anti-abuse rules apply broadly. You should seek advice tailored to your scale.
- Tax advisors and accountants: You will be busy. You should anticipate client inquiries, update templates, and educate non-tax stakeholders about deal impacts.
You should tailor your response to your role and scale; there is no one-size-fits-all playbook.
Legislative outlook and what to watch
You will be watching Capitol Hill and Treasury for specific signals. The legislative path could include committee hearings, bill drafting, and revenue offsets. The pace depends on competing priorities and budgetary constraints.
- Congressional hearings: Watch for testimony from industry groups, tax scholars, and government witnesses about the fiscal and economic trade-offs. Congressional language will reveal where compromise might emerge.
- Budget reconciliation: If Congress pursues tax changes via reconciliation, the change could be tied to revenue offsets or limited in scope to satisfy scorekeeping rules.
- Treasury rulemaking: Treasury and IRS will likely be tasked with drafting implementing regulations. Administrative guidance will determine practical contours and compliance burdens.
- Industry coalitions: You should track the Real Estate Roundtable’s continued advocacy as well as countervailing coalitions (e.g., consumer groups, small business advocates) that may propose modifications or protections.
You should actively follow announcements and committee schedules, because the detailed language will determine the actual impact.
Potential economic and social implications
You should consider the broader consequences beyond accounting lines. Tax rules shape behavior, capital allocation, and who benefits from real estate activity.
- Capital flows and development: If removal lowers financing frictions, you could see more capital directed toward construction and redevelopment, potentially affecting supply in certain markets.
- Distributional effects: Changes might favor well-capitalized institutional investors and sophisticated sponsors who can exploit entity-level advantages. You should question whether reforms contain measures that protect small owners and promote fairness.
- Market stability: Reduced complexity in tax treatment could lower transaction costs and improve liquidity, but if removal prompts aggressive tax schemes, market confidence could suffer.
You should weigh these macro effects against your firm’s objectives and the industry’s social responsibilities.
Common questions you will ask
You will have specific questions that advisors will need to answer quickly. Below are succinct responses to frequently raised points.
- Will removal be retroactive?
- Likely not broadly, because retroactivity raises political and fairness concerns. However, watch for specific transition rules that may affect pending transactions.
- Does removal mean tax avoidance will increase?
- Not necessarily; it depends on accompanying anti-abuse measures. Removal can be paired with targeted rules to limit exploitation while reducing compliance burdens.
- How fast will lenders react?
- Some will react quickly in covenant language, while others may wait for regulatory clarity. You should assume a spectrum of responses and negotiate proactively.
- Will small owners benefit?
- Some may benefit from simplified reporting; others may be adversely affected if anti-abuse rules are overly broad. Assess on a case-by-case basis.
You should bring these questions to your tax counsel and lender discussions for tailored answers.
Conclusion: how you should position yourself
You should treat the Real Estate Roundtable’s support for removing the look-through rule as a signal, not a fait accompli. It matters that industry voices are coordinating public advocacy, because that raises the likelihood of legislative attention. Your best posture is proactive: model scenarios, strengthen documentation, communicate with financing partners, and prepare to adapt organizational practices. Thoughtful preparation will let you benefit from reduced compliance complexity if removal occurs, while protecting you from the unexpected consequences of rushed implementation or overbroad anti-abuse rules.
You should expect complexity to remain—it is the nature of tax law—but your ability to anticipate, document, and negotiate will determine whether the change improves your business position. If the removal aligns tax form more closely with economic substance in your deals, you may escape years of arcane tracing and focus instead on making real estate work: building, managing, and stewarding assets with clearer after-tax outcomes.
Where to go for more information
You should monitor:
- Official statements and publications from the Real Estate Roundtable.
- Tax Notes and other specialized tax policy outlets for reporting on legislative and regulatory developments.
- Treasury and IRS notices that will provide interpretive guidance.
- Your tax counsel and accounting advisors for client-specific modeling and compliance planning.
You should also keep an eye on legislative calendars and committee hearings; the shape of any reform will be revealed in draft statutory language. If you act early and thoughtfully, you will preserve optionality and position yourself to benefit from change while managing downside risk.
You should stay informed, be skeptical of overly simple claims, and insist on rigorous analysis before you alter transaction structures. The lure of immediate simplification is real, but good governance will ensure that simplification does not come at an unacceptable cost.