Private equity firms have long been central players in the U.S. economy, driving investments in businesses, creating jobs, and stimulating the economy. Last month, lawmakers issued a renewed call to eliminate the capital gains tax treatment on carried interest, a crucial component of private equity, venture capital, and hedge-fund compensation. Private equity firms have responded by pushing back against this potential reform, lobbying to keep the current tax policy in place to preserve economic growth.
Explaining Carried Interest
Carried interest is a share of the profits that investment managers receive as additional compensation for successfully managing high-risk investments. Typically, carried interest constitutes about 20% of the profits generated by the fund, although the percentage can vary depending on the specific arrangement. This compensation is not a salary or fee for services rendered but a share in the profits of the fund, paid only after investors have received their initial capital back, along with a minimum required return, often referred to as the “hurdle rate.”
The core controversy with carried interest lies in its tax treatment. Under the current U.S. tax system, carried interest is classified as a long-term capital gain rather than ordinary income. The IRS treats it as a capital gain because the manager is perceived to be making an investment in the fund. As a result, the income derived from carried interest is taxed at the capital gains tax rate, which is generally 20% for long-term holdings compared to the ordinary income rate of 37%.
For carried interest to qualify as long-term capital gain, the underlying investments held by the fund must be held for more than a year. Prior to the 2017 tax reform, the requirement for carried interest to be taxed as long-term capital gains was not explicitly restricted, so fund managers could claim long-term capital gain treatment even if the assets were held for a shorter period.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) introduced Section 1061, which extended the holding period for investments to qualify for the lower capital-gains rate from one year to three years. This provision was designed to close a perceived loophole where fund managers could enjoy long-term gains as long as the investment was held for more than a year but still enjoy the lower long-term capital gains tax rate.
Trump’s Proposal and Its Impact
Section 1061 highlighted the growing political pressure to reform carried interest taxation. While the three-year holding period rule tightened the previous tax benefits, this proposal could subject fund managers to ordinary income tax rates on carried interest in entirety.
Trump’s push for higher tax on carried interest is part of his broader tax reform strategy. The proposal is aimed at generating additional tax revenue, which could offset tax cuts for corporations or contribute to reducing the federal deficit. According to a December 2024 estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, taxing carried interest as ordinary income could decrease the federal budget deficit by $14 billion over 10 years.
This could have profound implications for the private equity industry. Fund managers would see a higher tax burden, which could reduce the after-tax return on investments, ultimately impacting the overall attractiveness of private equity as an investment vehicle. Higher taxes could discourage fund managers from pursuing certain types of investments, particularly riskier long-term projects, which require substantial upfront capital. As a result, some private equity firms might seek to restructure their compensation arrangements or adjust their investment strategies to mitigate the impact of these tax changes.
For investors, the shift in tax treatment could result in lower returns on their investments, particularly as the structure of the private equity industry evolves in response to these reforms. We could potentially see a reduction in new funds, with the biggest impact felt at the smaller fund level. Changes in carried interest tax rules may increase structure complexity and compliance costs for private equity firms. Clients may be forced to restructure fund agreements to avoid the proposed tax consequences. However, the full extent of these effects remains uncertain, and private equity advocates argue that the proposals could ultimately reduce overall economic growth.
Pushing Back
Private equity firms have been vocal in their opposition to any proposed changes to the tax treatment of carried interest. One of their key arguments is that the current system helps to attract and retain investment in long-term growth opportunities. Private equity firms argue that by taxing carried interest at the capital gains rate, fund managers are incentivized to focus on creating lasting value rather than making short-term, quick-profit investments.
Industry advocates assert that the capital gains treatment encourages fund managers to take calculated risks on businesses that need capital to scale, innovate, and grow. These investments, in turn, lead to job creation, higher wages, and an increased tax base. Groups like the American Investment Council have published reports showing that private equity-backed businesses are major contributors to job creation, with private equity firms generating more than 10 million jobs across the United States.
Private equity groups have pushed back with significant lobbying efforts. They argue that the new tax structure could harm the economy by discouraging investment in high-risk businesses, particularly those in underserved sectors. They point to studies suggesting that private equity plays a critical role in improving the productivity of U.S. businesses and enhancing global competitiveness.
Moreover, private equity firms have argued that the industry already faces significant regulatory scrutiny and that additional taxes would place an undue burden on private equity funds. Firms that specialize in venture capital or other high-growth investments may be particularly affected, as they depend on the capital gains treatment to incentivize their partners to take on riskier investments.
Bottom Line
Proposed changes to Section 1061 could affect how carried interest is taxed and may impact the financial industry—beginning with high-level fund managers and executives, then extending to broader investment structures, compensation models, and investor returns. We advise clients to avoid surprises and model various exit scenarios, especially for assets close to the new holding period thresholds.
As President Trump and other lawmakers propose various reforms, the private equity industry stands firm in defending its tax structure. While reform advocates argue for a more equitable system, private equity firms emphasize the crucial role that carried interest plays in driving innovation, job creation, and economic growth. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for both the private equity industry and the broader U.S. economy, making the conversation over tax reform a topic worth watching.
This material has been prepared for informational purposes only, and is not intended to provide or be relied upon for legal or tax advice. If you have any specific legal or tax questions regarding this content or related issues, please consult with your professional legal or tax advisor.
