The Carried Interest Debate – Down to the Wire
Unless you have been living under a rock, you’ve no doubt read about the debate in Congress going on regarding carried interests for venture capitalists. Many in Congress, in order to continue to fund their agenda, are looking to change the tax classification of VC profits from capital gains to ordinary income.
It looks like the next 48 hours will determine how this debate works out. The finance folks on the Hill are in full swing deciding on a number of issues, including the good news today about leaving angel Investors alone and allowing at least that part of the startup ecosystem to remain unscathed.
As for the carried interests issue, it’s been overly-politicized in a myriad of ways including those who like to frame this as class warfare, those who see this issue as just a bunch of winey VCs who don’t want their taxes increased or those who claim that VCs make money off of services and should be taxed accordingly.
I don’t think any of these are accurate. What this is really about is the future health of the innovation economy in the United States. It’s really that simple.
Now don’t get me wrong. I understand the political rhetoric. Every time a new tax is proposed, some group of politicians rise up claim the sky is falling and that the new tax will “kill” an industry. The fact that it usually doesn’t means that when there are real concerns, they fall upon deaf and / or suspicious ears.
I’m not one of those folks. I don’t like taxes (like most folks), but understand that in many new tax cases the markets adapt and life goes on. I honestly feel, however, that this is not one of those cases.
Whatever you believe about VCs, their wealth, they way they earn their income, etc., one thing that is apparent is that VCs partner with great entrepreneurs to create jobs. And we create a lot of them. In fact, we risk our personal wealth and reputations to invest money in highly risky startups that take 5 to 10 years to mature in these efforts.
Most of our investments do not work out as we plan. The ones that do, create sustainable, long-lasting jobs that benefit the job market today and for future generations.
And for this, Congress is thinking of effectively tripling the tax rate on our risky efforts. This at a time where job creation is the single most important issue our country faces. This at a time when countries like China and Russia are considering EXEMPTING VCs from taxes that invest in startups. This is simply stunning to me.
We’ve already seen a lot of investment capital (from both VCs funding startups and those that invest in VCs) go overseas to places like India and China. Anyone who is active in our ecosystem knows that money available to U.S.-based startups is less than it has been in 15-20 years. I guess that i could argue that 2009 might have been a bit worse, but go ask most entrepreneurs or VCs what it is like to raise money these days and they won’t wax poetically.
And the Congress is saying: “hey, we don’t care. Take more of your money overseas. In fact, let’s move all the VC activity offshore.” What’s left of our long-term economic viability if we give other countries the ability to compete better than we can?
Nice. Really nice.
Another argument that I love is that “VCs haven’t returned profits in the last decade to their investors, therefore they shouldn’t get incentive-based tax treatment.” This makes no sense on a number of levels.
- It’s arguably true if you look at the entire industry, but says nothing about many funds who are successful making their investors money. We cannot assume the successful VCs will continue to want to work hard if their taxes are tripled; and
- And, if true, this just proves my point about how risky all of this activity is, further supporting the point that incentives need to exist.
And remember, VCs do pay normal income taxes on management fees (salary) that they receive. And many VCs return all the management fees to their investors before they take profits, so effectively they are paying normal income tax rates on money loaned to them.
But what worries me the most is the slippery slope that we are going down. Even if you believe that VC profits should be taxed as services/income, then how on earth do you distinguish this from the cheap equity that founders allocate to themselves when starting a company? Isn’t all of their success based on the labor and services as well? While VCs may be using other people’s money to invest, so are entrepreneurs.
So how do you distinguish? Answer: you can’t. Entrepreneurs, you are next.
Bottom line, the Congress is going down an irreversible path that threatens to undermine the innovation economy in this country. I hope that logic, instead of politics, prevail. We’ll know shortly the answer.
Jason Mendelson is a managing director at Boulder-based VC firm Foundry Group. He also sits on the board of the NVCA, and blogs at www.jasonmendelson.com.
Related posts:



Bob Ackerman said on May 19, 2010
Jason -
You are right on the money when it comes to why this discussion is critical to the innovation cycle upon which the re-birth of the American economy is dependent. The only way we avoid following Greece (and we are right behind them) is to create new industries – with their high paying and highly differentiated jobs – in the America. This is the key to not only our standard of living but also tackling the sticky issues related to our massive national debt. These jobs are the output of the venture ecosystem. Our economic policies (including tax) should be focused on how we encourage and stimulate as much innovation as possible in America. Venture Capital is “a” key element of this process… and tax rates do have a material impact on the risk/reward relationships associated with start-up based innovation. Plain and simple.
As for those who base their arguments against long term capital gains treatment for Carried Interest on “fairness” – let me point out that our tax code is and has almost always been a tool to achieve social and economic objectives. I would put high paying job growth at the top of the list of priorities in both of these cases. Lest some think venture capitalists are being singled out for special treatment… “Why is interest on home loans deductible when rent is not?”. “Why were there tax credits for new home purchases over the past year?” We have a long history of tax breaks for investment in research and development or for purchases of capital equipment.” “What about donations to non-profit organizations improving the quality of life in America?”. Are these “Fair?” The tax code favors these activities because they are deemed to be beneficial to our society and something to be encouraged as they benefit us all. I would make the same argument for job creation in America, especially the types of higher paying jobs that tend to sprout from the venture ecosystem. Don’t believe me; ask someone who is unemployed or marginally employed.
As for the suggestion that it is “OK†for venture capitalists to invest their capital and ability off-shore, this is already happening. Frankly, in many cases, the capital is following the foreign-born entrepreneurial talent that once dreamed of building their lives in America that are returning to the lands of their birth – including India and China. And remember, the combination of capital and talent that are fueling the explosive job growth in these emerging economic powerhouses – are creating jobs that don’t employ Americans or pay US taxes.
The matters at hand are economic and vital to the growth and viability of the American economy. Given the choice between job opportunities tied to venture-based innovation and a job working for General Motors or the Federal Government, I know how I would vote.
David said on May 19, 2010
To be fair, the Chinese tax incentives apply to the fund level and not to the compensation of the investment professionals. The U.S. should have more similar tax incentives to encourage investment in early stage companies. For example, the former SBIC program benefited many VCs. The SBA system was broken in many ways, but could be fixed and improved. In many ways the clean tech stimulus package has benefited VCs. I find it very difficult to argue that the tax treatment of carried interest is the best way to encourage investment in early stage companies.
Here is a good analysis of the Chinese law:
http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1164.pdf
Tom said on May 19, 2010
> Bottom line, the Congress is going down an irreversible path that threatens to undermine
> the innovation economy in this country.
You are redistributing capital from VCs, to Congress. Do you think Congress will invest that
money more wisely? Looking at the current deficit and ongoing, growing, national debt, I’d
say the answer is no.
VCs at least fund companies that create jobs and tax revenue.
Congress creates debt.
> Entrepreneurs, you are next.
What was that old metaphor: like negotiating with the alligator to be the last eaten?
We’ve seen our future and it looks like Greece right now…
Tom said on May 19, 2010
Bob: I was composing my post and you must have been finishing yours. You’ve done a much
more eloquent job of stating my main themes.
mlb said on May 19, 2010
So corporations should also have an advantaged tax rate because they create jobs, right?
ShekharR said on May 19, 2010
As I understand the entreprenuers/ideas that VCs invest in will mostly likely not be capable of raising money in the debt markets. If this new law passes, wouldn’t it be just a shift in financial structure where the VCs provide debt capital with warrants and are still actively involved in ensuring the exits are big enough to provide same equity as before. It does postpone the eventual sale of the equity by a few years to take advantage of the long term capital gains, but I am sure this can be accomplished – am i missing something here?
Georges van Hoegaerden said on May 19, 2010
Again, VCs are not the creators of value, they are derivatives to the value created by entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs should be supported with special tax breaks, VCs should not. Entrepreneurs by virtue of their ideas create jobs, VCs do not. I would argue LPs deserve a tax break for committing their money to Venture. And don’t be afraid of GPs leaving; it is not that hard to find new GPs in Venture that can perform better than the current.
VC is the arbitrage of distribution of (mostly) public money from LPs in an artificially constricted marketplace, a demi-cartel that is highly in-transparent, lacks a meritocracy and performs below the technology adoption curve it rides on. As a result VCs have lost most of their credibility to stave off regulation. It’s their own fault; regulate yourself or be regulated.
But I have to say I disagree with method of financial reform. Regulating an in-efficient market model is sub-optimization (at best), costs tons of money and will not produce better returns in venture to make up for it. I’d rather see the government come up with a new market model (call me) that saves another $2 Trillion or so in Venture money be washed down the drain, over trying to fix the tax rate on the carry of VCs they are not generating en-masse anyway.
Regulation is futile until we change the fundamental market model (see my blog) under which VC is allowed to operate. Financial reform is not about changing dials, financial reform is about changing the system. We now have an opportunity to change the market model so it regulates itself, like real free-markets are designed to do.
Best,
Georges
Trevor Loy said on May 20, 2010
Jason, this is a wonderfully written post. I also think there is a lot of room for intelligent, reasonable people to disagree about the esoterics of tax code treatment, etc, and for the most part the debates I have been part of at NVCA, on Capitol Hill, and in social media have reflected that responsible discourse. It’s unfortunate that some people, as always, have resorted to name-calling but that will always be the case.
On the merits of the issue, I think what gets lost in the pedagogy of the debate is that tax policy is not a philosophy or an ideology – it is simply a technology. Tax policy is a tool used by the government to incentivize certain types of activities and discourage others. That is why taxes on tobacco are so high, why mortgage interest is deductible, why farmers in the Midwest are subisidized to grow corn (or often, to NOT grow corn in order to restrict supply and keep prices high) and why lots of techies get a tax break on their Priuses. It’s perfectly reasonable – and appropriate – for the government to make decisions about incentivizing certain types of activities and disincentivizing others.
(Reasonable and smart people can and have argued that such a government approach is NOT appropriate and argue that the government should not favor any activities over any others. While I don’t share their view, I recognize its intellectual validity. That argument, however, is much larger than the scope of this issue. As long as we have government tax policy that does incentivize some activities over others, I believe it is reasonable to discuss whether or not venture capital investments in small businesses are a good incentive or not).
So, the question for me is simply, should the government craft a tax policy that incentivizes the type of investing that venture capitalists do, or not? I am a strong believer that it should, with the caveat that for me, it is the *type* of investment and not the form or structure of the investor that matters. I believe the government should incentivize non-leveraged, long-term, high-risk equity ownership investments in companies founded by promising entrepreneurs who don’t personally have the financial wealth to fund the company themselves.
Angels do this kind of investing, and deserve to be incentivized by government tax code. VC’s do this kind of investing, and deserve to be incentivized by government tax code. Anyone else (banks, companies, overseas investors, etc) ought to be similarly incentivized. Not because it is the “right” or the “fair” thing to do, but because it is good government policy, because it creates economic growth and new jobs at a higher rate than any other form of incentive. Certainly more than growing corn for ethanol, or NOT growing corn in order to keep grain prices high.
Next, the question is, should government tax policy incentivize the creation of entrepreneurial value in start-up companies if the means of such creation is not purely via capital? Again, this is a reasonable debate to have. Lots of people have strong opinions about whether, in their personal view, venture capital investors “deserve” to be incentivized to add their networks and expertise and sweat equity alongside the entrepreneurs. If you are a person who holds the belief that a venture capitalist – by definition – does NOT add substantial value in the entrepreneurial wealth creation process, then it certainly is logical to argue that VCs should not be incentivized.
That said, however, the most important element of Jason’s post, in my view, is the slippery slope. If you are going to argue not from an incentivize/tax policy standpoint, but from a philosophical or structural “fairness” standpoint that ONLY cash investments can receive capital gains treatment, then you are actually arguing against a much larger portion of the economy than just VCs and carried interest. The majority of energy production, the majority of real estate development, a large number of small and family owned businesses, and nearly all startup entrepreneurial companies rely on the premise that some people contribute cash, others contribute other intangible assets ranging from IP to sweat equity, and in the end, they all benefit from capital gains tax treatment on the growth of a capital asset that results.
From a philosophical or ideological standpoint, if you want to argue that ONLY capital should be narrowly eligible for capital gains treatment, then you are inadvertently going to to eliminate the ability for company founders to be taxed at capital gains rates for the value they grow in their businesses. Along the way you’ll penalize everyone who started a restaurant with seed money from their uncle, everyone building apartments in their neighborhood using capital from third-party investors, everyone wildcatting for energy resources that the world desperately needs.
In summary, here is kind of how I boil down the issue:
1. Should capital gains have a differential tax rate than ordinary income? If you think not, then the rest of this issue is moot. If you think it should, because it stimulates a higher rate of capital formation and velocity of investment in the economy – which I believe it does – then move on…
2. Should capital gains tax treatment apply narrowly only to the investment of actual cash, or can it also be applied to the creation of wealth via the growth in value of capital assets (i.e. things that are bought and sold as capital assets, which separates it from things like sales commissions)? I.e. if you start a restaurant or a farm or a business or an natural gas well or an apartment complex, and you put in a small % of the $ but do all the work and own a large % of ownership of the asset, while others supply just the $, are you limited to capital gains tax treatment on just the $ you put in, or should you eligible for capital gains tax treatment on your entire share of ownership in the asset that you helped to build? If you think the answer is that cap gains tax should only apply to cash, then we’re done and the rest of this is moot. I believe, however, that it is reasonable for the government to adopt a tax policy – from a practical, if not a philosophical or ideological standpoint – that incentivizes such entrepreneurs, as it is one of the key ways our economy has remained vibrant. If you agree with me, then I would also argue that people who start technology companies, or people who work for them, ought to be entitled to similar incentives of capital gains tax treatment on the increase in value of their ownership stake, and not just the de minimus amount of $ they may have directly invested themselves.
3. If the government tax policy is going to incentivize the creation and long-term growth in value of capital assets in the form of restaurants, farms, wells, properties, and technology startups – and do so in a way that applies the capital gains tax incentive to the ownership stake of the owner and not narrowly to the $ they invested – then the next question is, who should be eligible for that incentive? Until now, the answer has been pretty clear: the tax applies to the ownership in the asset, not to the cash contribution, so if you build a great restaurant or farm or business or property, and sell it, you get capital gains treatment. Under the new proposals, however, you’re now looking at a different approach. So the question is, how do you decide who should be eligible, if you’re not solely relying narrowly on cash $ invested? If you think it should just be founders, or just employees, then what about companies that angels or VCs help found, or take a interim operational role with? Practically speaking, I think it is nearly impossible for the government to draw distinctions among different types of non-cash contributions to the growth of value of a capital asset, and I think the only way to do it is how we’ve historically done it: we let the people involved neogitate among themselves how much ownership will go to those providing intangible value and how much ownership will go to those providing cash. If you and your uncle agree that he gets 80% or 99% or 60% of the restaurant’s ownership for providing nearly all the capital, and you get the rest for working the 90 hour weeks, I argue that ought to be up to you to negotiate and not have the goverment awkwardly intervene with a tax policy that tries to define differently who is doing what. That said, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue against my position here; I’m just saying, I don’t think it’s practically reasonable to argue against it purely on the limited case of how VC carried interest is treated, without thinking about what happens to treatment of all the other deal structures and players throughout the small business and entrepreneurial economy, because I don’t think it’s possible in the end to differentiate them.
4. Finally, if you agree from #1 that it’s good policy to tax capital gains differently than ordinary income, and from #2 that it’s okay to apply cap gains in some cases to situations where the capital gain was created from an intangible contribution, and from #3 that it’s okay to allow individual players to negotiate their share of the cash vs. intangible contribution, then we end up in a final question of whether or not this practical “technology” of a policy approach, as opposed to a philosophical or ideological approach, ends up creating more benefit or less. Here, you simply have to decide, do you believe some version of the many studies that show the enormous benefit to the USA economy and private sector job creation from having incentives to the various players who support non-leveraged, long-term, high-risk start-up company growth? If, like some bloggers, you simply think it’s all baloney and PR hype, then it is reasonable to argue that the government shouldn’t bother to stimulate this area. (You probably think they should do more to pay farmers not to grow corn). If, like me, you think that the directional trend of all the studies is pretty conclusive, regardless of any quibbles about particular numbers and particular metholdogies, then I would argue that it’s pretty damn important for government tax policy to do everything it can to incentivize this type of company growth, recognizing that more often than not, the entrepreneurs and the investors and the employees come away with nothing, but when it does work in the minority of cases, it works so well that it has literally driven nearly all of our country’s economic and productivity gains in the last 30 years.
So, there’s my long-winded articulation of how I see the world. As always, your mileage may vary and I respect the opinions of well-mannered people committed to thinking the issue through.
Pascal Levensohn said on May 20, 2010
As Bob Ackerman points out, globalization has only accelerated the mobility of innovators. Top entrepreneurs, and the risk capital that nourishes them, will naturally migrate to environments that support them with strong business infrastructure and with favorable financial rewards for the risks that they take.
In America, our legislators have not understood that the painful evidence of America’s slipping global competitiveness is rooted in precisely the type of short-term thinking drives current tax policy and other “reactive” financial regulatory initiatives. The unintended consequences of ill-conceived and hastily enacted securities regulations have already created a ghost town in the U.S. public markets for the small capitalization, emerging growth companies that drive job creation in our country.
Jason Mendelson accurately points out that the functional line between the tax treatment of equity owned by founders and the carried interest that compensates venture capitalists for their sweat equity is a fuzzy one at best. In fact, the same venture capitalists will normally work with specific companies for eight years or more, whereas 2/3 of founding CEO’s are replaced before a venture-backed company reaches a liquidity event. It makes absolutely no sense for venture capitalists to be taxed on gains from these investments at ordinary income rates. Sadly, as Jason suggests, this may mean that the American entrepreneur is next.
America, be careful what you wish for…
Tom said on May 20, 2010
If Robert Oppenheimer were alive today to watch the U.S Congress do its “magic”, he might say: “I am become Taxes, the destroyer of businesses.”
Robert said on May 20, 2010
Jason Said:
>So how do you distinguish [between entrepreneurs and VCs]? Answer: you can’t. Entrepreneurs, you are next.
This argument that you can’t distinguish between the entrepreneur and the venture capital fund is weak. If it is impossible to make these types of distinctions then why is the NVCA making a distinction between VC funds and other private equity funds? So Congress can distinguish between a VC fund and a buyout fund but not an entrepreneur and a VC? You can’t have it both ways…
Cornelius Diamond said on May 27, 2010
The whole argument for the VCs is that they create jobs and therefore they should be given preferential tax treatment. But they do not create jobs; they only give money to an idea that
has already occurred; if it is a good idea than it will happen, with or without the VCs. Better to
give preferential tax treatment to entrepreneurs, or start-up companies, after all, it is they who create the jobs, NOT THE INVESTOR. THE INVESTOR JUST PROVIDES CAPITAL IN HOPES OF A
RETURN. They do not create any value for the economy whatsoever, nor do they give efficient
distribution of capital as their returns over the last 10 years have demonstrated.
Frances morgan said on June 3, 2011
Every time we get in an economic crises we think about raising taxes, but really if we can stop wasting the tax money we will not need to raise taxes
As long as we keep paying un-employment people will not look for a job, Food stamps, government aid for everyone without drug test is waist of tax payer money
Kleinanzeigen meine Stadt said on September 6, 2011
Thank you for every other informative web site. The place else may I get that kind of information written in such a perfect means? I’ve a mission that I’m simply now working on, and I’ve been on the glance out for such info.king Regards Hans
Brendan Weissenborn said on December 13, 2011
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly helpful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping to give one thing again and help others like you helped me.