Accounting
UN tax deal may replace OECD framework after Trump executive order
Published
2 months agoon

Negotiations at the United Nations began last week in New York over a global tax framework, and those talks may gain new impetus after President Donald Trump signed an executive order rejecting the two-pillar framework that the Biden administration had been negotiating with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
On Inauguration Day,
The U.S. has not yet ratified the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on tax base erosion and profit-shifting framework, or BEPS for short, due to opposition from Republican lawmakers. But Trump’s repudiation of the global tax framework on his first day in office was a striking move for some observers.
“I was not so much surprised by this kind of policy direction, but just the timing,” said Zorka Milin, policy director of the FACT (Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency) Coalition, a nonpartisan alliance of over 100 state, national and international organizations. “I don’t think any of us who follow international tax expected this to be a day one priority issue, so that came as a surprise.”
She sees a risk in the gains made on a global tax agreement. “In addition to all the trade wars, if we’re going to have a tax war, which is what they want this order threatens, that would not be in anyone’s interest,” said Milin.
Trump’s executive order threatens punitive action against other countries that are implementing parts of the OECD plan such as the Under-Taxed Profits Rule and the top-up tax, or the digital services taxes that countries like France and Canada have levied on multinational tech giants.
It says, “The Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the United States Trade Representative shall investigate whether any foreign countries are not in compliance with any tax treaty with the United States or have any tax rules in place, or are likely to put tax rules in place, that are extraterritorial or disproportionately affect American companies, and develop and present to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, a list of options for protective measures or other actions that the United States should adopt or take in response to such non-compliance or tax rules. The Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver findings and recommendations to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, within 60 days.”
The Trump administration’s stance toward the OECD framework on global minimum taxes and country-by-country reporting could shift the action over to the United Nations now, where negotiations are underway on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. The Biden administration wasn’t able to get the OECD framework passed in Congress despite former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s support for the effort.
“It doesn’t change anything, because everyone knew that the Biden administration couldn’t get these things through, but in some ways, it just clarifies that they’re not going to apply in the U.S.,” said Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, a U.K. advocacy group concerned about tax avoidance. “But I think it’s the other piece of the memorandum that’s more significant. It’s the threat to go after other countries that are introducing elements of the OECD proposals, or indeed other types of tax incentive responses to the OECD’s failure, like digital services taxes. That takes things to a different level, and there’s an interesting possibility that it might backfire. What it won’t do is show countries, perhaps particularly in the European Union, that there’s no hope for getting any improvements on what’s already quite a weak OECD proposal, and instead push them into the United Nations process where something more significant could be achieved, which is exactly what I think the Trump administration would want to avoid. They may have given it rather a big push.”
Bargaining power
The U.S. may lose some of its bargaining power in the UN negotiations. “The U.S. effectively has a veto of the OECD, and that’s why the last negotiations were so difficult,” said Cobham. “The first Trump administration couldn’t get to a deal within the two years. So then in came the Biden administration, and completely flipped and put their own proposal in instead, and really added to the approach on the second pillar. We’re now back to a Trump administration, and both of those pillars really look frozen. So that’s the degree of control the U.S. has had. In the United Nations, most decisions are made by consensus. But where there isn’t consensus, it will go either to a simple majority or perhaps a supermajority of two-thirds of countries. That’s still to be determined for this negotiation of the convention. And what that means is, unless the U.S. can bring lots of countries with it, it won’t be able to block individual items, or indeed the convention as a whole. So you might see the U.S. not withdrawing, but kind of staying at the table in order to be somewhat obstructive. But it won’t actually be able to stop anything. And in the end, if a significant number of countries sign the convention, it will become effective for U.S. multinationals in other countries, even if the U.S. stays outside.”
The UN tax negotiations have not been receiving as much attention as the OECD’s Pillar One and Pillar Two framework, but the move could shift momentum toward the UN.
“We need to have a multilateral agreement on tax issues because these are global problems, and the solution also has to be global,” said Milin. “I think that the OECD has done a lot of good work over the years and made a lot of progress, and the agreement was supported by something like 140 countries. It’s a big achievement, and maybe the UN can build on that achievement. But whether we’re talking about the OECD or the UN, I think it is unfortunate that the U.S. as a major international economic actor wouldn’t be at the table in those discussions. To be clear, I don’t expect that to happen necessarily, because if we read and parse carefully the text of that order, it’s not that the U.S. is withdrawing from their membership in the OECD. They will stay at the table, and I suspect try to gain additional leverage. I don’t think that this is the end of the story for the OECD process. I think it’s something that we’ll have to continue to watch to see how it evolves. If certain provisions of the previous agreement have to be reopened, that will be interesting to see, but I don’t think it will just be thrown out. I’m not even sure that that’s the policy goal of the Trump administration.”
DST impact
Canada’s digital services tax could pose a problem for the U.S., no matter what happens at the OECD or the UN. “There will be a test case very soon with Canada’s DST,” said Cobham. “Will Canada accept the tariffs, or whatever is going to be imposed? We’ll see that by the end of March. I think we’ll see the proposals come forward. Will Canada fold and give up their DST, or will they fight? That will be interesting to see, but it’s different when it’s one country. If we have 100 countries signing the UN convention, I think there will be a commitment to play together, to pass that into law collectively, perhaps to face collective punishment, but without the same kind of ability to pick off individual countries. I think we will see a move, almost because the U.S. multinationals will move first. In 2017 and 2018, it only took a few countries to start the process of introducing DSTs, and the big tech multinationals in the U.S. forced the administration into negotiations again at the OECD. Once it becomes clear that the UN convention could go much further than that, I think the U.S. Treasury will be hearing very clearly that they need to be full participants in the negotiations, even if that’s largely trying to block it. That’s going to be difficult, because you need a significant minority, at least, to be able to block at the UN.”
GILTI vs. UTPR
The upcoming negotiations in Congress over the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 may also play a role. The TCJA includes some international tax provisions, such as Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, or GILTI for short, and Foreign-Derived Intangible Income, or FDII. Similarly, the Biden administration’s version of a global minimum tax in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, known as the corporate alternative minimum tax, mainly applies to companies earning over $1 billion and
Trump’s executive order could be one way for the U.S. to regain leverage in the OECD process.
“Maybe they think they can get a better deal than what was negotiated under the previous administration,” said Milin. “That’s how I read the order, especially when we think about the context and the history here. The process was initiated under the first Trump administration, actually. It goes back to the days of [former Treasury] Secretary [Steven] Mnuchin and some of the policy ideas that were included in the 2017 Republican tax bill around the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income. The U.S. was the first to introduce a tax like that, and the OECD was a forum where that policy idea could go global. I think that this has actually been a policy win for Republicans, even though it’s strange that they don’t see it that way. What is unfortunate is the order seems to be targeting — but It’s not explicit — an aspect of the international tax agreement that is called Under-Taxed Profits Rule, which is something that was included in order to deal with companies from nonimplementing countries, in particular China, at the insistence of U.S. negotiators. If they’re successful in undermining UTPR, that’s a gift to China, and I don’t think that’s what they would want.”
In contrast, Trump’s new executive order authorizes the Treasury Secretary to retaliate against other countries that seek to impose taxes on U.S. multinational companies.
“If we take the order on its face, the results would be that the U.S. would be imposing these punitive, retaliatory taxes on some of our major trade partners and political allies in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, while on the other hand, helping out China, and that makes no sense,” said Milin. “I don’t think that that is consistent with foreign policy of this or any other U.S. administration.”
Democrats are in the minority in both houses of Congress now, and Republicans plan to pass a tax bill through the budget reconciliation process that would sideline Democrats, allowing Republicans to bypass the requirement for a two-thirds majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Nevertheless, Democrats nevertheless reintroduced a bill last week that might have some influence on the tax debate, especially since the Trump administration has expressed the desire to bring jobs back to the U.S. from abroad. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, and Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas,
The Trump executive order seems to envision possible retaliatory actions by the U.S. against other countries that could come in the form of tariffs or even sanctions.
“It could be a form of trade sanctions, or even potentially an additional tax on U.K. companies operating in the U.S.,” said Cobham. “The U.K., because it’s quite isolated now, having left the European Union, is one that you can see being picked off in that way. But the European Union has also committed to introduce the UTPR, the Under-Taxed Profits Rule, and that’s the one where you where you can say, if the headquarters country is not applying a reasonable minimum rate of tax and the multinational operates in your country, then you can use the UTPR to apply that top-up tax. So I think that will be the big clash. Canada’s DST is interesting, but the European Union’s UTPR is the big one. If in effect, the Trump administration’s investigation over the next 60 days finds that the EU’s UTPR is effectively in breach, in their view, because they they would say it’s extraterritorial to try to top up the taxes being paid in the U.S., whereas the EU would say this is making sure that economic actors within the EU are paying fair tax. But that’s the difference, the tension this is bringing out. If there is a specific proposal to put some kind of tariff or tax measures on European Union countries or their multinationals, this very quickly comes to a head. It feels like the OECD proposals are already faltering. I think this is really the end of any prospect of global adoption, certainly, and the question is really whether it boosts momentum for the UN process instead.”
Disillusionment
The U.S. isn’t the only country that has become more skeptical about the OECD framework, and that could pave the way for the UN framework to make more headway.
“Hstorically, the OECD has really led the way here, but what happened in 2022 was a UN resolution,” said Cobham. “That’s something that the G77, the countries of the developing world, have really wanted for about 20 years, but have never been able to make progress with. What happened in 2022 was that so many OECD member countries had become so disillusioned with the OECD process that the resolution to begin looking at a UN convention went through the General Assembly by consensus. And that was quite remarkable, really unprecedented. Since then, they’ve had an ad hoc committee, as they call it, of delegates from every country in the world putting together the terms of reference for the full negotiations.”
Those delegates began meeting last week and plan further talks. “We have a schedule now for about two and a half years of negotiations to create a framework convention,” said Cobham. “That can do two things, really. It can create new rules within the convention, but as we have with the UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change], it will create a framework body. They’ll be able to set new tax rules in the future, on top of anything that’s agreed in this two and a half years in the convention. Potentially, this will displace the OECD as the global tax rule setter, and in that shift, the U.S. will lose the power of veto that it effectively has in the OECD.”
On the same day Trump signed an executive order repudiating the OECD global tax deal, he signed another
“I think the dynamics are different in the sense that in the Paris Agreement, there isn’t any mechanism against noncooperating countries,” said Cobham. “It may make it harder for the world to limit the degree of climate damage, but it doesn’t give anyone else the power to try to punish the U.S. And nothing that other countries do on climate, unless they were to come up with some kind of sanctioning measure around U.S. carbon emissions, let’s say, but that’s really not being thought of. Whereas on the tax side, you can move ahead very quickly — and you might move ahead quicker if you don’t have the U.S. at the table — with measures that will apply to U.S. multinationals in other countries where they operate, so almost without anyone trying, the tax convention will have an impact on U.S. economic actors. And I think that means the dynamics are different. I think it would be very hard for Trump to ignore that this is happening, even if he thinks the UN is worthless or illegitimate or anything else. The fact that this will affect the taxes paid by U.S. multinationals may affect the access of U.S. financial institutions to world markets if they’re seen as outside the cooperative sphere. The convention could do things in that space too. All of that means that the lobbying pressure from business and finance on the Trump administration on the Treasury, I think, would be hard to resist.”
You may like

What becomes of the broken-hearted; the earth moved; Kreative accounting; and other highlights of recent tax cases.
Providence, Rhode Island: Four Florida residents have been convicted and sentenced for what authorities called one of the largest schemes to defraud CARES Act programs.
The defendants defrauded various federally funded programs of more than $4.8 million, and each of the defendants pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The schemes involved obtaining and using stolen ID information to submit fraudulent applications to multiple state unemployment agencies, including the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, and to submit fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loans and Paycheck Protection Program loan applications. The defendants also submitted fraudulent applications in the names of other persons to federal and state agencies to obtain tax refunds, stimulus payments, and disaster relief funds and loans.
The scheme involved using the stolen information to open bank accounts to receive, deposit and transfer fraudulently obtained government benefits and payments and to obtain debit cards to withdraw the money.
Sentenced were Florida residents Tony Mertile, of Miramar, identified in court documents as the leader of the conspiracy, to six years in prison; Junior Mertile, of Pembroke Pines, sentenced to 54 months; Allen Bien-Aime, of Lehigh Acres, to four years; and James Legerme, of Sunrise, to four years. All four were also sentenced to three years of supervised release to follow their prison terms.
The government moved to forfeit a total of $4,857,191, or $1,214,294.75 apiece, proceeds of the conspiracy. The defendants have also forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of Rolex watches and assorted jewelry and more than $1.1 million in cash. Each defendant is also liable for $4,456,927.36 in restitution to defrauded agencies and financial intuitions.
Raleigh, North Carolina: Michon Griffin, 46, who engaged as a money mule (a.k.a. middleman) in an international romance scheme, has been sentenced to two years in prison and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and to making false statements on her 1040.
Between 2021 to 2023, Griffin received more than $2 million from the scheme that she deposited into fictitious bank accounts that she controlled. She converted the money to virtual currency and wired the funds to overseas accounts controlled by her co-conspirators in Nigeria.
Griffin received some $300,000 from the romance fraud, which she did not report as income on her 1040 for 2021.
She was also ordered to pay $109,119 in restitution to the IRS.
Las Vegas: Tax preparer Keisy Altagracia Sosa has pleaded guilty to preparing false income tax returns.
Sosa has operated the tax prep business National Tax Service, and from 2016 to 2021 prepared and filed false federal returns for clients. These returns included falsely claimed dependents, and fictitious Schedule A and Schedule C expenses such as sales taxes paid and unreimbursed employee expenses.
Sosa continued to prepare false returns even after the IRS notified her that her returns appeared inaccurate and informed her that she may not be meeting due diligence requirements.
Sosa caused at least $550,000 in tax loss to the IRS.
Sentencing is June 11. She faces up to three years in prison, as well as a period of supervised release and monetary penalties.

Elk Mound, Wisconsin: Business owner Deena M. Hintz, of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, has been sentenced to a year in prison for failure to pay employment taxes.
Hintz, who pleaded guilty in December, owned and operated Jade Excavation and Trucking for nearly 10 years and at times had up to 15 employees. From 2017 to 2021, Hintz deducted more than $400,000 in federal employment taxes from employees’ pay and, instead of paying those taxes to the government, kept the money.
She was also ordered to pay $482,185.46 in restitution.
Littleton, Colorado: Tax preparer Thuan Bui, 60, has been sentenced to three years in prison and a year of supervised release and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine after pleading guilty to one count of aiding or assisting in preparation of false documents.
From about 2016 to 2021, Bui operated a tax prep business under several names, lying to clients that he was a CPA. On hundreds of returns, Bui overstated or fabricated expenses on Schedules C.
Philadelphia: Resident Joseph LaForte has been sentenced to 15 and a half years in prison for defrauding investors, conspiring to defraud the IRS, filing false tax returns, employment tax fraud, wire fraud, obstruction and other charges.
LaForte defrauded investors using a fraudulent investment vehicle known as Par Funding. Along with conspirators, he caused a loss to investors of more than $288 million.
He and conspirators diverted some $20 million in taxable income from Par Funding to another entity controlled by LaForte and nominally owned by another, then filed returns that did not report this income; he also received more than $9 million in kickbacks from a customer of Par Funding and did not report this income to the IRS. He paid off-the-books, cash wages to some employees, failing to report these wages to the IRS and not paying employment taxes.
The federal tax loss exceeds $8 million. He also caused $1.6 million in state tax loss to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue by falsely reporting that he and his wife were residents of Florida from 2013 through 2019 when they lived in Pennsylvania.
Hampton Roads, Virginia: Two area residents have pleaded guilty to their roles in a refund scheme involving pandemic relief credits.
Between October 2022 and May 2023, Kendra Michelle Eley of Norfolk, Virginia, filed eight 941s for Kreative Designs by Kendra LLC using the EIN assigned to another company, Kendra Cleans Maid Service. These forms covered four tax periods in 2020 and four in 2021. On each of the forms, Eley falsely reported wages paid and federal tax withholdings for 18 purported employees, knowing there were no such employees.
For the four forms filed for 2021, Eley claimed false sick and family leave credits and Employee Retention Credits, totaling some $975,000. In December 2022, the IRS issued two refund checks payable to the cleaning company totaling $649,050.
That same month, Eley and Rejohn Isaiah Whitehead, of Portsmouth, Virginia, opened a business checking account in the name of Kendra Cleans; signatories on the account were Eley and Whitehead. The two falsely represented the nature and extent of the business, including that it had 16 employees and that the average pay of each was $2,000. Eley funded the account by depositing one of the refund checks in the amount of $389,640. In January 2023, Eley wrote Whitehead two checks from the account totaling $60,000.
Whitehead’s sentencing is June 26 and Eley’s is July 9. They each face up to 10 years in prison.
Accounting
Accountants tackle tariff increases after ‘Liberation Day’
Published
15 hours agoon
April 3, 2025
President Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on countries around the world is likely to drive demand for accounting experts and consultants to help companies adjust and forecast the ever-changing percentages and terms.
On April 2, which Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” he announced a raft of reciprocal tariffs of varying percentages on trading partners across the globe and signed an
“A lot of CFOs are thinking they are going to pass along the tariffs to their customer base, and about another half are thinking we’re going to absorb it and be more creative in other ways we can save money inside our company,” said Tom Hood, executive vice president for business engagement and growth at the AICPA & CIMA.
The AICPA & CIMA’s most recent
“CFOs in our community are telling us that, effectively, they’re looking at this a lot like what happened over COVID with a big disruption out of nowhere,” said Hood. “This one, they could see it coming. But the point is they had to immediately pivot into forecasting and projection with basically forward-looking financial analysis to help their companies, CEOs, etc., plan for what could be coming next. This is true for firms who are advising clients. They might be hired to do the planning in an outsourced way, if the company doesn’t have the finance talent inside to do that.”
The tariffs are not set in stone, and other countries are likely to continue to negotiate them with the U.S., as Canada and Mexico have been doing in recent months.
“The one thing that I think we can all count on is a certain amount of uncertainty in this process, at least for the next several months,” said Charles Clevenger, a principal at UHY Consulting who specializes in supply chain and procurement strategy. “It’s hard to tell if it’s going to go beyond that or not, but it certainly feels that way.”
Accountants will need to make sure their companies and clients stay compliant with whatever conditions are imposed by the U.S. and its trading partners. “This is a more complex tariff environment than most companies have experienced in the past, or that seems to be where we’re headed, and so ensuring compliance is really important,” said Clevenger.
Big Four firms are advising caution among their clients.
“Our point of view is we’re advising all of our clients to do a few things right out of the gate,” said Martin Fiore, EY Americas deputy vice chair of tax, during a webinar Thursday. “Model and analyze the trade flows. Look at your supply chain structures. Understand those and execute scenario planning on supply chain structures that could evolve in new environments. That is really important: the ability for companies to address the questions they’re getting from their C-suite, from their stakeholders, is critical. Every company is in a different spot according to the discussions we’ve had. We just are really emphasizing, with all the uncertainty, know your structure, know your position, have modeling put in place, so as we go through the next rounds of discussions over many months, you have an understanding of your structure.”
Scenario planning will be especially important amid all the unpredictability for companies large and small. “They’re going to be looking at all the different countries they might have supply chains in,” said Hood. “And then even the smaller midsized companies that might not be big, giant global companies, they might be supplying things to a big global company, and if they’re in part of that supply chain, they’ll be impacted through this whole cycle as well.”
Accountants will have to factor the extra tariffs and import taxes into their costs and help their clients decide whether to pass on the costs to customers, while also keeping an eye out for pricing among their competitors and suppliers.
“It’s just like accounting for any goods that you’re purchasing,” said Hood. “They often have tariffs and taxes built into them at different levels. I think the difference is these could be bigger and they could be more uncertain, because we’re not even sure they’re going to stick until you see the response by the other countries and the way this is absorbed through the market. I think we’re going through this period of deeper uncertainty. Even though they’re announced, we know that the administration has a tendency to negotiate, so I’m sure we’re going to see this thing evolve, probably in the next 30 days or whatever. The other thing our CFOs are reminding us of is that the stock market is not the economy.”
Amid the market fluctuations, companies and their accountants will need to watch closely as the rules and tariff rates fluctuate and ensure they are complying with the trading rules. “Do we have country of origin specified properly?” said Clevenger. “Are we completing the right paperwork? When there are questions, are we being responsive? Are we close to our broker? Are we monitoring our customs entries and all the basic things that we need to do? That’s more important now than it has been in the past because of this increase in complexity.”
Accounting
How to use opportunity zone tax credits in the ‘Heartland’
Published
15 hours agoon
April 3, 2025
A tax credit for investments in low-income areas could spur long-term job creation in overlooked parts of the country — with the right changes to its rules, according to a new book.
The capital gains deferral and exclusions available through the “opportunity zones” credit represent one of the few areas of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that drew support from both Republicans and Democrats. The impact of the credit, though, has proven murky in terms of boosting jobs and economic growth in the roughly 7,800 Census tracts qualifying based on their rates of poverty or median family incomes.
Altering the criteria to focus the investments on “less traditional real estate and more innovation infrastructure” and ensuring they reach more places outside of New York and California could “refine the where and the what” of the credit, said Nicholas Lalla, the author of “
“I don’t want to sound naive. I know that investors leveraging opportunity zones want to make money and reduce their tax liability, but I would encourage them to do a few additional things,” Lalla said. “There are communities that need investment, that need regional and national partners to support them, and their participation can pay dividends.”
READ MORE:
A call to action
In the book, Lalla writes about how the Innovation Labs received $200 million in fundraising through public and private investments for projects like a startup unmanned aerial vehicle testing site in the Osage Nation called the Skyway36 Droneport and Technology Innovation Center. Such collaborations carry special relevance in an area like Tulsa, Oklahoma, which has a history marked by the wealth ramifications of the
“This book is a call to action for the United States to address one of society’s defining challenges: expanding opportunity by harnessing the tech industry and ensuring gains spread across demographics and geographies,” he writes. “The middle matters, the center must hold, and Heartland cities need to reinvent themselves to thrive in the innovation age. That enormous project starts at the local level, through place-based economic development, which can make an impact far faster than changing the patterns of financial markets or corporate behavior. And inclusive growth in tech must start with the reinvention of Heartland cities. That requires cities — civic ecosystems, not merely municipal governments — to undertake two changes in parallel. The first is transitioning their legacy economies to tech-based ones, and the second is shifting from a growth mindset to an inclusive-growth mindset. To accomplish both admittedly ambitious endeavors, cities must challenge local economic development orthodoxy and readjust their entire civic ecosystems for this generational project.”
READ MORE:
Researching the shortcomings
And that’s where an “opportunity zones 2.0” program could play an important role in supporting local tech startups, turning midsized cities into innovation engines and collaborating with philanthropic organizations or the federal, state and local governments, according to Lalla.
In
Other research suggested that opportunity-zone investments in metropolitan areas generated a 3% to 4.5% jump in employment, compared to a flat rate in rural places,
“It creates a strong incentive for taxpayers to make investments that will appreciate greatly in market value,” Tax Foundation President Emeritus Scott Hodge wrote in the analysis, “Opportunity Zones ‘Make a Good Return Greater,’ but Not for Poor Residents” shortly after the Treasury study.
“This may be the fatal flaw in opportunity zones,” he wrote. “It explains why most of the investments have been in real estate — which tends to appreciate faster than other investments — and in Census tracts that were already improving before being designated as opportunity zones.”
So far, three other research studies have concluded that the investments made little to no impact on commercial development, no clear marks on housing prices, employment and business formation and a notable boost in multifamily and other residential property,
The credit “deviates a lot from previous policies” that were much more prescriptive, Feldman said.
“It didn’t want the government to have a lot of oversay over what was going on, where the investment was going, the type of investments and things like that,” she said. “It offered uncapped tax incentives for private individual investors to invest unrealized capital gains. So this was the big innovation of OZs. It was taking the stock of unrealized capital gains that wealthy individuals, or even less wealthy individuals, had sitting, and they could roll it over into these funds that could then be invested in these opportunity zones. And there were a lot of tax breaks that came with that.”
READ MORE:
A ‘place-based’ strategy
The shifts that Lalla is calling for in the policy “could either be narrowing criteria for what qualifies as an opportunity zone or creating force multipliers that further incentivize investments in more places,” he said. In other words, investors may consider ideas for, say, semiconductor plants, workforce training facilities or data centers across the Midwest and in rural areas throughout the country rather than trying to build more luxury residential properties in New York and Los Angeles.
While President Donald Trump has certainly favored that type of economic development over his career in real estate, entertainment and politics, those properties could tap into other tax incentives. And a refreshed approach to opportunity zones could speak to the “real innovation and talent potential in midsized cities throughout the Heartland,” enabling a policy that experts like Lalla describe as “place-based,” he said. With any policies that mention the words “
“We can’t have cities across the country isolated from tech and innovation,” he said. “When you take a geographic lens to economic inclusion, to economic mobility, to economic prosperity, you are including communities like Tulsa, Oklahoma. You’re including communities throughout Appalachia, throughout the Midwest that have been isolated over the past 20 years.”
READ MORE:
Hope for the future?
In the book, Lalla compares the similar goals of opportunity zones to those of earlier policies under President Joe Biden’s administration like the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, the American Rescue Plan and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
“Together, these bills provided hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money for a more diverse group of cities and regions to invest in innovation infrastructure and ecosystems,” Lalla writes. “Although it will take years for these investments to bear fruit, they mark an encouraging change in federal economic development policy. I am cautiously optimistic that the incoming Trump administration will continue this trend, which has disproportionately helped the Heartland. For example, Trump’s opportunity zone program in his first term, which offered tax incentives to invest in distressed parts of the country, should be adapted and scaled to support innovation ecosystems in the Heartland. For the first time in generations, the government is taking a place-based approach to economic development, intentionally seeking to fund projects in communities historically disconnected from the nation’s innovation system and in essential industries. They’re doing so through a decidedly regional approach.”
Advisors and
“This really is a bipartisan issue. Opportunity zones won wide bipartisan approval,” he said. “Heartland cities can flourish and can do so in a complicated political environment.”

China to impose 34% retaliatory tariff on all goods imported from the U.S.

Actively managed ETFs hit $1 trillion

Donald Trump is attacking what made American universities great

New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations

The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation

Are American progressives making themselves sad?
Trending
-
Economics1 week ago
Young Americans are losing confidence in economy, and it shows online
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Student loans could be managed by the Small Business Administration
-
Economics7 days ago
PCE inflation February 2025:
-
Economics1 week ago
White House denials over the Signal snafu ring hollow
-
Accounting7 days ago
IRS sets new initiative with banks to uncover fraud
-
Economics7 days ago
Consumer sentiment worsens as inflation fears grow, University of Michigan survey shows
-
Economics1 week ago
Texas troopers are in more and more lethal car chases
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Millions of student loan borrowers past-due after bills restarted: Fed