Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The New World Order: Lessors Must Refocus

By Howard K. Weber
June 30, 2004

Over the last year, it has become obvious that there must be a fundamental shift in the way large-ticket leasing companies look at their tax shelter businesses. This article will examine what has brought about this shift and how lessors will find ways to cope with it.

In the 70s, 80s and early 90s, the large-ticket equipment leasing business consisted mainly of investments in equipment transactions wherein lessors bought and then leased equipment to corporate lessees. This business was fairly basic wherein corporations, which for one reason or another could not use tax benefits, would sell a piece of equipment to a lessor and lease it back, in essence trading tax benefits for a lower after-tax cost of financing. As companies became profitable in the mid- to late-90s, corporate users of equipment required less of the aforementioned financings. Companies discovered that they could make more efficient use of the tax benefits themselves than by trading them through leases. This led to lessors looking for new types of transactions where they could still generate tax benefits from equipment financings, and lessors found a new market in tax-exempt entities. While the corporate transactions of the earlier era relied on the credit of the lessee directly, transactions to the tax-exempt entities generally involved some form of credit enhancement in addition to the credit of the lessee. Although the lessee was always primarily liable, credit committees of investors required support for the credit of the lessee.

Some leasing companies at this time also took an interest in other forms of tax credits such as Section 29 and Section 42 Affordable Housing Credits. Certain of the Section 42 credits were also sold in a credit enhanced basis so that the lessor was looking not at the project itself, but to a guarantor to provide the investors' return should anything go wrong. Each of the Section 29 and Section 42 transactions involved the lessor owning a piece of property.

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.