Laws has been reintroduced within the New York State Meeting (A.3009-B Half VV) and the Senate (S.2509-B Half SS) that, if enacted, would require (i) the recording of sure mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness investments and (ii) the fee of mortgage recording tax (MRT) on such debt or investments. The acknowledged function of the laws is to supply income for public and reasonably priced housing. Whereas it’s unclear whether or not the laws shall be enacted, New York lenders and debtors ought to concentrate on the potential hostile implications.
The proposal expands the scope of Part 291-k of the New York State Actual Property Regulation and makes conforming adjustments, as described beneath, to Part 250 of the New York State Tax Regulation and Part 9-601 of the New York State’s Uniform Industrial Code. On the outset, the proposed laws supplies that “each time a mortgage instrument is recorded within the workplace of the recording officer of any county, any mezzanine debt or most well-liked fairness funding associated to the true property upon which the mortgage instrument is filed shall even be recorded with such mortgage instrument.”
The proposal defines mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness investments as:
debt carried by a borrower that could be subordinate to the first lien and is senior to the widespread shares of an entity or the borrower’s fairness and reported as property for the needs of financing such major lien. This shall embody non-traditional financing methods akin to a direct or oblique funding by a financing supply in an entity that owns the fairness pursuits of the underlying mortgage the place the financing supply has particular rights or most well-liked rights akin to: (i) the correct to obtain a particular or most well-liked price of return on its capital funding; and (ii) the correct to an accelerated compensation of the buyers capital contribution.
Along with amending the Actual Property Regulation, the proposed laws additionally amends New York State’s Uniform Industrial Code (UCC) by including a brand new subdivision to part 9-601 to supply that “a safety curiosity in mezzanine debt and/or most well-liked fairness investments associated to the true property upon which a mortgage instrument is filed, could solely be perfected by the submitting of a financing assertion underneath subpart 1 of half 5 of this text and solely after the fee of any taxes due pursuant to part 200 ninety-one-k of the true property regulation.”
Lastly, the proposed laws amends the New York Tax Regulation to clarify that “mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness investments” are taxable, and that the tax shall be measured by the quantity of “principal debtor obligations” which can be secured by a safety settlement “in relation to actual property upon which a mortgage instrument is filed.” Which means, if the laws is handed, mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness investments with respect to New York Metropolis business property with an quantity or having a worth of $500,000 or extra can be taxed on the price of two.85%.
The proposed laws is flawed for a lot of causes, together with the next:
The proposed laws is obscure and misunderstands the aim and nature of mezzanine debt.
Mezzanine debt has turn out to be an integral and customary a part of actual property finance and funding not primarily as a way to keep away from MRT, however as a method of additional leveraging an asset past first mortgage financing. A mezzanine borrower sometimes pledges the fairness within the proprietor of property to the mezzanine lender as safety for the mortgage. A UCC financing assertion sometimes is filed concurrently with the closing. If the property proprietor raises capital within the type of most well-liked fairness, there is no such thing as a UCC submitting.
The aim and justification acknowledged within the Sponsor’s memorandum in assist of the laws erroneously states that mezzanine debt is used to finance actual property purchases. This isn’t typically true, as mezzanine debt is utilized in all kinds of contexts, together with in recapitalization transactions, development, and rehabilitation. In apply actual property mezzanine debt is now utilized in a wide range of contexts: for development, improvement and rehabilitation, as bridge financing. These loans, that are secured by a pledge of the partnership or restricted legal responsibility firm pursuits, command a better rate of interest, since they don’t seem to be secured by actual property and symbolize a riskier place in a debt stack. Mezzanine debt supplies flexibility wanted for contemporary actual property financing. Mezzanine debt is often used as a result of a senior lender won’t need to mortgage in extra of a sure mortgage to worth with respect to the property or greater than a sure mortgage to price of a undertaking. Traders searching for further leverage would go to the mezzanine markets to search out lenders which are keen to make loans in these riskier positions for added yield.
It’s unclear what ‘mezzanine debt associated to the property’ means, and this language might inadvertently seize different types of debt. For instance, does an unsecured company stage mortgage to an entity that owns actual property encumbered by a recorded mortgage qualify as mezzanine debt? It’s also unclear what the availability “and reported as property for the needs of financing such major lien” is meant to imply or seize. Mezzanine debt is often separate and distinct from any mortgage debt, held by a distinct lender, and has a distinct danger profile than mortgage mortgage debt.
The obscure and expansive definition of ‘most well-liked fairness’ might topic investments that don’t have any connection to the financing of actual property to the MRT. For instance, is a associate who supplies companies to a partnership that owns mortgaged actual property required to document the partnership settlement and pay MRT on its funding? Equally, what if a partnership settlement incorporates a provision for returning capital to an investor sooner than one other or features a carried curiosity provision? May these investments be deemed ‘most well-liked fairness’ if the partnership owns mortgaged property?
The proposed new subdivision to UCC part 9-601 additionally displays a basic misunderstanding of most well-liked fairness. Perfection, certainly all of UCC Article 9, applies to secured transactions. UCC financing statements will not be filed in most well-liked fairness transactions not as a result of events are looking for to keep away from MRT, however as a result of most well-liked fairness transactions will not be secured transactions and are created and exist exterior of Article 9 of the UCC. As well as, the proposed laws prohibits foreclosures on the mezzanine debt or most well-liked fairness in New York courts except the MRT has been paid. New York’s laws can’t stop foreclosures in one other jurisdiction if, because of the enactment of this laws, the agreements entered into present for foreclosures litigation to be commenced in one other jurisdiction. Most well-liked fairness is just not enforced by foreclosures, which is a statutory treatment inapplicable to fairness transactions. Most well-liked fairness investments will not be and can’t be remedied by foreclosures. Thus, within the case of each mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness the tax income that’s projected to be generated by this proposal could by no means be realized.
The proposed laws will enhance the price of proudly owning, growing, and rehabilitating New York properties.
Funding in actual property, together with elevating debt to buy, develop, and rehabilitate represents an unlimited a part of New York’s economic system. Including a major MRT unquestionably will increase the prices for each for revenue and not-for-profit house owners and builders, because the MRT doesn’t exempt nonprofit organizations from that tax. Limiting the usage of mezzanine debt reduces the flexibleness that property house owners and builders have to finance tasks and will make wanted tasks throughout a wide range of sectors much less economically viable.
At present’s actual property market is dynamic and underneath stress; having most flexibility to finance actual property funding and improvement is important. Debtors want entry to capital and the choice of accessing a number of sources to assemble aggressive and viable debt packages. This laws will stymie improvement by limiting the supply of debt and rising the price of the debt that continues to be accessible.
The proposed laws violates the Structure of the State of New York.
Article XVI Part 3 of the New York State Structure states: “Intangible private property shall not be taxed advert valorem, nor shall any excise tax be levied solely due to the possession or possession thereof, besides that the revenue therefrom could also be considered in computing any excise tax measured by revenue typically.”
The aim of this provision within the Structure is to guarantee nonresidents of New York who’ve financial institution deposits (money owed owed to depositors by the financial institution) and people whose inventory certificates have been held in New York brokerages that they’d not face a state or native tax on these intangibles. New York doesn’t and can’t impose a tax on a mortgage notice (or the mortgage doc) however, fairly imposes the MRT, which is an excise tax on the privilege of recording a mortgage.
In Franklin Soc. for Dwelling Constructing & Financial savings v. Bennett, et al., 282 NY 79, (12/28/1939), the Court docket of Appeals acknowledged that the “validity of the tax relies upon upon whether or not it’s correctly labelled or categorised as a ‘recording tax,’ which isn’t levied solely due to the possession or possession of a mortgage or, is, because the plaintiff maintains, an advert valorem tax on property, inside the which means of the constitutional provision.” The Court docket held the MRT was “a tax payable solely when a mortgage is recorded to acquire the good thing about the recording acts or to rid the mortgage or its proprietor from the penalties and drastic restrictions ensuing from failure to document.”
This proposed laws requires mezzanine debt and most well-liked fairness investments to be recorded in order that the MRT could be imposed. As well as, the recording of a notice reflecting mezzanine debt supplies none of the advantages which are afforded a recorded mortgage. Mandating the recording of a doc reflecting an intangible asset with the intention to impose the MRT turns the excise tax on the privilege of recording into an unconstitutional tax on an intangible asset.
©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. Nationwide Regulation Assessment, Quantity XI, Quantity 84