Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

October 16, 2012

Court Issues "Historic" Decision In Tax Credit Case

On August 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rendered a decision in the case of Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner.1 The Court's decision had an instant impact on the rehabilitation of historic buildings and the design of the transactions which have been used to finance such rehabilitations in the past.

Section 47 of the Internal Revenue Code allows a taxpayer to claim a dollar-for-dollar tax credit ("Historic Tax Credits") equal to 20% of certain expenditures made to renovate certified historic structures. The IRS has stated its position that the Internal Revenue Code does not permit Historic Tax Credits to be sold for use by taxpayers other than the owner of a certified historic structure.

In the Historic Boardwalk Hall case, the State of New Jersey formed a state agency known as the NJSEA. In 1992, the State legislature authorized the NJSEA to acquire, renovate and operate the East Hall, an historic landmark, which is located on the boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Thereafter, the NJSEA created a limited liability company named Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC (the "Company") and, through the issuance of a confidential offering memorandum, sold a 99.9% membership interest in the Company to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc. (the "Investor").

The Company ultimately claimed a substantial amount of Historic Tax Credits on its tax return with respect to the expenditures made to renovate East Hall. In accordance with the membership percentages of the Company, these Historic Tax Credits were allocated 99.9% to the Investor.

Following an audit, the IRS determined that the Company was simply a vehicle to transfer Historic Tax Credits from the NJSEA, the owner of East Hall, to the Investor in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, the IRS re-allocated all of the Historic Tax Credits claimed by the Investor to the NJSEA. The Tax Court disagreed with the IRS' determination2 and the IRS appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court and found that the Investor was not a bona fide partner in the Company. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Investor did not have any meaningful downside risk in the Company, nor any meaningful upside potential in the Company. The Court found that the documents evidencing the Investor's relationship with the Company and the NJSEA in effect guaranteed the Investor would recoup its investment and receive the Historic Tax Credits regardless of the success or failure of the rehabilitation of East Hall and the Company's subsequent operations. In addition, the Court cited the reality that the Company would not have any cash remaining after certain required payments to the NJSEA that would allow the Investor to share in any upside of the Company.

Although the facts in the Historic Boardwalk Hall case were somewhat unusual, in substance the transaction was not atypical for deals of this nature. It now seems clear that the typical structure used for rehabilitation projects to this point will have to be revised to insure that the tax credit investor has the ability to share significantly in the upside potential of the rehabilitation project and has at least some downside risk in the project. The unknown right now is how much upside potential and how much downside risk will be sufficient to insure that the structure of the transaction will pass IRS scrutiny.

If you require further information regarding the information presented in this Legal Alert and its impact on your organization, please contact any of the members of the Tax Practice Area.

1 110 A.F.T.R. 2d 2012-5710.
2 136 T.C. 1 (2011).


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Compres, Sanchez, Fontanez, Pajaro, Garcia, and Jaquez—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Competello, Fernandez, Liz, Riley, and Trippett—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs


New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked


Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Claim Based on Material Misrepresentations in Insurance Application

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out