United States: The Case For and Against REITs -- Tax-Advantaged Entities, Tax Shelters, or Inept Legislative Drafting?

Last Updated: November 23 2005
Article by Kirk Lyda
Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2019

The use of real estate investment trusts, or "REITs," has increasingly become a point of controversy between state taxpayers and state tax administrators. Taxpayers generally take the position that, as a result of federal and state statutes specifically encouraging the use of REITs and providing related tax benefits, REITs and their shareholders are entitled to deductions not afforded to other types of taxpayers. Some state tax administrators take the position that REITs and their shareholders are taking advantage of inconsistent provisions in federal and state tax law to qualify for special tax treatment not intended by lawmakers. This tension has led to litigation over the use of REITs from coast to coast (and beyond), to legislation intended to curb the perceived abusive use of REITs, and even to some states taking the position that in some instances, the use of REITs is a "tax shelter." This article examines the current status of this important controversy.

Overview Of Taxation Of REITs

REITs are federally created investment vehicles established by Congress in 1960. A REIT is a corporation or other entity that elects to be treated as a REIT and that meets certain requirements as to its ownership, organization, and the nature of its income and assets. A REIT’s activities are generally limited to investing in real estate or loans secured by real estate and related activities. In order to qualify for taxation as a REIT, the entity must pay out substantially all of its ordinary income as dividends. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a corporate REIT generally computes its taxable income and tax in the same manner as non-REIT corporations, except that a REIT is not entitled to the dividends received deduction (DRD) but is specifically entitled to deduct dividends paid to its shareholders (DPD). While a corporate shareholder of a REIT would otherwise be entitled to a DRD for dividends received from the REIT, the IRC specifically denies that deduction for federal income tax purposes. Thus, for federal income tax purposes, a REIT is generally treated as a non-taxable flow through entity, with tax being paid at the REIT shareholder level.

Most if not all states that impose a corporate income tax require corporations to calculate taxable income by reference to the taxpayer’s gross income for federal income tax purposes. Many states allow corporations to deduct from their gross income the deductions afforded under the IRC. However, many states expressly deny the benefit of the federal DRD, and instead, provide for a DRD by state statute. Unlike Congress, some states have not denied the state DRD for dividends received by a corporate shareholder of a REIT. In those states, income earned by a REIT and distributed as a dividend to a corporate shareholder qualifies for the DPD at the REIT level because state law incorporates the federal DPD afforded by the IRC. However, the dividend received by the corporate REIT shareholder may not be included in the state’s tax base, either because the shareholder is not otherwise "doing business" in the state and is thus not subject to the state’s taxing jurisdiction, or because the corporate shareholder claims the DRD afforded by the plain terms of state statute.

Autozone Development v. Kentucky -- REIT Entitled To DPD

The Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals recently rejected a challenge by the Kentucky Department of Revenue to the use of REITs in Autozone Development Corp. v. Department of Revenue.1 In 1995, Autozone, Inc. restructured its operations. What had been a single, unitary enterprise was broken up into four discrete entities: Autozone Stores, Inc. ("Stores"), which retailed automobile parts at stores located across the country; Autozone Development Corporation ("Development"), a corporate REIT that owned the real property on which Stores operated; Autozone Properties, Inc. ("Properties"), which owned most of Development’s shares; and Autozone, Inc., a holding company that provided management services to the subsidiaries. All four companies were incorporated in Nevada. Development owned or leased land and buildings located in Kentucky.

For Kentucky corporate income tax purposes, the federal DRD is disallowed but by state statute dividend income is excluded from the gross income of a corporation. Under the Kentucky statutes, corporations are generally entitled to the deductions afforded under Chapter 1 of the IRC, which would encompass the DPD allowed to REITs. On its Kentucky corporate income tax returns, Development claimed the DPD for dividends paid to Properties. Although not discussed in the decision, the dividends received by Properties were presumably not subject to the Kentucky corporate income tax, either because Kentucky lacked jurisdiction to tax Properties, or because the dividends qualified for the DRD under the Kentucky statutes. After reviewing the returns filed by Development, the Kentucky Department of Revenue sought to disallow the DPD presumably on the theory that the DPD was not intended to apply in this situation.

Development appealed to the Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals and the Board granted Development’s motion for summary judgment. The Board reviewed the interplay between the applicable provisions in the IRC and the Kentucky statutes and (without saying so expressly) readily concluded that Development’s position was consistent with (if not dictated by) the statutes. Development was entitled to the DPD because the Kentucky statutes incorporate the DPD afforded in the IRC, and the fact that the dividends may have escaped taxation by Kentucky altogether did not change the natural outcome under the statutes. In short, the Board applied the law as written.

Louisiana v. Autozone Properties -- REIT Shareholder Liable For Louisiana Income Tax On Dividends Received

The Louisiana Supreme Court sustained a different theory for challenging the Autozone REIT structure in Department of Revenue v. Autozone Properties, Inc. 2 Stores paid 8% of its gross sales to Development as rent and deducted that expense from its income for Louisiana corporate income tax purposes. Development paid the 8% to Properties as a dividend, thus qualifying for the DPD in Louisiana. Since Properties itself had no presence in Louisiana, and Nevada, Properties’ legal domicile, imposes no corporate income tax, the 8% passed into Properties’ hands without the imposition of Louisiana corporate income tax.

The Louisiana Department of Revenue sought to tax the 8% not by attempting to disallow the DPD as Kentucky had tried, but instead by asserting jurisdiction to tax Properties. Although the Louisiana courts initially rejected the Department’s attempt to reach out and tax Properties, the Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Department. Relying on International Harvester, 3 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not prevent a state from taxing a nonresident shareholder’s investment income based on its investment in a separate corporation engaging in business activities in the taxing state. In reaching that rather expansive conclusion, the Supreme Court was no doubt swayed by the Department’s allegations that the use of pass through entities, and REITs in particular, is some sort of evil "tax shelter." Having found that Louisiana had jurisdiction to tax the REIT shareholder, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower courts to determine Properties’ tax liability.

UNB Investment Company v. New Jersey -- DRD Not Allowed

The New Jersey courts have also considered the tax issues surrounding REITs in UNB Investment Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation. 4 United National Bancorp implemented a REIT structure somewhat similar to the REIT structure of Autozone. UNB Investment Company, a New Jersey corporation, owned all of the outstanding stock of Bridgewater Mortgage Company, Inc., a corporate REIT doing business in New Jersey. The REIT distributed its income to UNB as a dividend and claimed the DPD for both federal income tax and New Jersey corporate business tax purposes. UNB reported the dividend payment on its New Jersey corporate business tax return, but claimed a DRD pursuant to the New Jersey statutes. During the years in issue, the New Jersey statutes allowed a corporate taxpayer to exclude from its entire net income 100% of the dividends paid by subsidies in which it owns at least an 80% interest, without any express exception for dividends received from a REIT. The New Jersey Division of Taxation sought to disallow the DRD on the theory that the disallowance was consistent with the federal treatment of dividends received from REITs.

The matter reached the New Jersey Tax Court which held that although UNB was not entitled to a DRD, the Division of Taxation was prohibited from disallowing the deduction in these circumstances since the Division had failed to duly issue a regulation providing notice that a DRD would be disallowed in these situations. The Tax Court recognized that in cases in which the statutory language is unambiguous on its face, a court should not go beyond that language to determine the legislature’s intent. The New Jersey statute on its face provided for a DRD. The Tax Court nevertheless held that since another New Jersey provision linked the meaning of "REIT" to the federal definition, and since under the federal scheme the shareholders of a REIT generally pay income tax on the dividends they receive from a REIT, the New Jersey statute providing for a DRD was ambiguous. In searching for the legislative intent underlying the statute, the Tax Court concluded that it is highly unlikely that the legislature ever recognized or considered the tax consequences of permitting a REIT to take a DPD while generally affording a DRD to corporate shareholders. The Tax Court ultimately concluded that in providing for a DPD, the legislature intended to provide relief from double taxation, but did not intend to exclude income earned by a REIT from taxation altogether.

Having found that UNB was not entitled to a DRD, the Tax Court considered whether disallowing the deduction was warranted in this situation. The Tax Court held that if the Division’s position in the case amounts to a "rule" under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Division was required to formally promulgate that "rule." The Tax Court held that the Division’s position was a "rule" because, in part, it was intended to apply to all corporate shareholders of REITs. Since the Division had failed to formally promulgate its position as a rule, the court held that "it is unfair to penalize taxpayers through ad hoc adjudication under the facts presented here where they have not been put on notice of the Director’s position." The court accordingly held that the tax assessment was invalid.

BankBoston Corp. v. Massachusetts -- Dividend From A REIT Is Not A "Dividend"

The issue of whether distributions from a REIT qualify for the DRD is currently in litigation in Massachusetts in BankBoston Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue. 5 The BankBoston companies used a REIT structure similar to the structures discussed above. The REIT distributed its income to its corporate shareholder, Multibank Leasing Company. The REIT qualified for the DPD for federal income tax purposes. Since Massachusetts specifically allows deductions afforded under the IRC, the REIT qualified for the DPD for Massachusetts corporate income tax purposes as well. The shareholder, MLC, did not qualify for the DRD for federal income tax purposes since dividends from a REIT are specifically excluded from the federal DRD. However, since during the period in issue Massachusetts, like Kentucky, did not incorporate the federal DRD, and instead by Massachusetts statute broadly allowed corporations to deduct 95% of dividends received, with no exception for dividends from a REIT, MLC claimed the DRD on its Massachusetts corporate income tax returns.

On audit, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue denied the DRD. The Department reasoned that since the Massachusetts statutes generally provide that only deductions allowable under the IRC may be deducted from Massachusetts gross income, and no DRD was allowable under the IRC in this situation, MLC was not entitled to the deduction. The Department maintained that position even though the taxpayer had claimed the deduction under the plain terms of the Massachusetts DRD statute, and not because the deduction was allowable under the IRC. The Department further claimed that Massachusetts had adopted the federal scheme for taxing REITs and their shareholders at the shareholder level, and allowing the Massachusetts specific DRD would allow all but five percent of the REIT income to totally escape taxation by Massachusetts. The taxpayer argued that it was entitled to the deduction under the plain terms of the Massachusetts DRD statute since the statute broadly allows a deduction and does not contain an express exception for dividends from REITs.

The Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board ruled against the taxpayer and held that the DRD was not allowed. While noting that the taxpayer’s position has a certain logic, the Board concluded that the distribution from the REIT was not a "dividend" within the meaning of the Massachusetts DRD statute. The Board reasoned that because a dividend from a REIT is not treated as a dividend under the federal DRD provision, it is similarly not a "dividend" under the Massachusetts DRD statute, even though the Massachusetts statute did not expressly adopt the federal definition of a "dividend." The Board reached that conclusion despite the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had previously held the term "dividend" in the Massachusetts DRD statute was broader than the term "dividend" in the federal DRD statute. See Dow Chemical Co. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 378 Mass. 254 (1979). The Board buttressed its holding by suggesting that applying the Massachusetts DRD statute according to its plain terms and allowing the deduction would allow both the REIT and the REIT shareholder to totally escape taxation on all but five percent of the distribution, an "illogical and unwarranted result" in the view of the Board.

The Board noted that during 2003, the Massachusetts legislature amended the corporate income tax provisions to disallow the DRD for distributions from a REIT. As the Board noted, the legislature generally made that amendment retroactive back to tax years beginning on or after December 31, 1999, not far enough back to impact the years in issue in the BankBoston case. When the "REIT issue" was discussed at a recent state tax forum, a prominent state tax administrator with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue proudly proclaimed that Massachusetts had dealt with the REIT issue through legislation, retroactive legislation to boot, triggering a chorus of jaundiced laughter from the taxpayers and tax practitioners in attendance.

REITs As Tax Shelters? -- California Legislation & Litigation

Not one to be bashful in terms of corporate income tax policy, the California Franchise Tax Board has suggested that claiming a DRD attributable to a consent dividend 6 from a REIT is a "tax shelter." Effective January 1, 2004, California enacted fairly broad "tax shelter" legislation. Under those provisions, any "person" liable for any tax imposed by the California personal income tax law, the corporation tax law, or related administrative provisions, that has participated in a "reportable transaction" must file the appropriate Franchise Tax Board returns and disclose information as required by IRC § 6011 and the related regulations, as modified for California purposes. A "reportable transaction" includes any transaction that the federal Treasury under IRC § 6011 or the Franchise Tax Board determines as having a potential for tax avoidance or evasion. This includes listed transactions, defined as any transaction that is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified for federal income tax purposes under IRC § 6011 or for California income or franchise tax purposes as a tax avoidance transaction. The Franchise Tax Board Chief Counsel has specifically identified as a reportable transaction, transactions in which a REIT takes a dividend deduction for a consent dividend but the REIT owners do not report the consent dividend as income. 7

The California Franchise Tax Board’s efforts to label REITs as tax shelters in some situations has spilled over into the courts. On June 10, 2005, City National Corporation filed suit against the California Franchise Tax Board in Los Angeles Superior Court. One of the issues in the suit is whether the taxpayer engaged in "tax shelter" transactions involving REITs and regulated investment companies during the subject years. The amount in controversy exceeds $84M. Commenting on the issue during a recent state tax forum, a prominent state tax administrator with the California Franchise Tax Board remarked that if the taxpayers prevail in these types of cases, the Franchise Tax Board may well advocate the wholesale repeal of the DRD.

REIT Litigation In Hawaii

The REIT tax issue is too big to be confined to the Continental United States. The REIT issue is being litigated in Hawaii. Banks in Hawaii claimed a DRD for the distributions they received from their REIT subsidiaries. The Hawaii Department of Taxation disallowed the deductions and the banks appealed to the Hawaii Tax Appeal Court. In 2004, the Tax Appeal Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Taxation in one of the cases. The taxpayer appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, but the case was settled before a decision was issued. The appeal in the other case, In Re Tax Appeal of CPB Inc. and Central Pacific Bank, Nos. 02-0075 & 03-0155, is set for trial in December 2006.

Implications & Commentary

The REIT tax dispute raises a number of interesting issues. The overriding issue -- whether a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction plainly afforded by statute if, in the view of some, the deduction is not what was intended by lawmakers -- extends well beyond the dispute over REITs. The concept that taxpayers and their advisors should be allowed to rely on the law as written without having to psychoanalyze what the lawmakers subjectively intended does have some merit. If the written law is not what the lawmakers intended, perhaps the lawmakers should change the law without relying on tax administrators or the courts to do it for them.

It is often said that bad facts make bad law, and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Autozone is a case in point. The Court was obviously influenced by the Department of Revenue’s "tar and feather" approach of disparaging the REIT structure as a "tax shelter," and the Court apparently thought that upholding jurisdiction to tax the nonresident shareholder was the appropriate remedy. However, the law cannot be that merely owning equity in a separate entity doing business in a given state subjects the nonresident shareholder to income taxation in that state. If that were indeed the law, then I guess that means that all members of the Louisiana Department of Revenue are duly filing personal income tax returns and paying tax in all applicable states in which corporations in whose stock the members have invested are "doing business." Surely the members would not engage in "sheltering" their income from state taxation.

For a variety of reasons, tensions between state taxpayers and their advisors and state tax administrators are very high. As is often reported in the press these days, it’s easy to point the finger of blame at certain taxpayers and their advisors. However, actions such as those in Massachusetts in which the substantive state tax law was seemingly changed, retroactively, certainly do not help. There’s plenty of blame for the tension to go around.


1. Autozone Development Corp. v. Finance and Administration Cabinet Dep’t of Revenue Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. K04-R-16 (Ky. B.T.A. Oct. 10, 2005).

2. Bridges, Secretary, Dep’t of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. Autozone Properties, Inc., No. 2004-C-814 (La. March 24, 2005), rehearing denied (May 13, 2005).

3. Int’l Harvester Co. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Taxation, 322 U.S. 435 (1944).

4. UNB Investment Co., Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 21 NJ Tax 354, 2004 WL 1161809 (N.J. T.C. May 12, 2004).

5. BankBoston Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenue, No. C270546 (Mass. App. Tax Bd. Sept. 6, 2005).

6. Consent dividends are one component of the overall DPD afforded to REITs.

7. California Franchise Tax Board Notice No. 2003-1 (Dec. 12, 2003).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions