Carried Interest Under Fire: What Proposed Tax Changes Mean for Investment Managers

In early February 2025, carried interest tax rules are again under debate in the U.S. Both Congress and the President are pushing for changes that could greatly affect private equity, hedge funds, and venture capital firms. This article delves into the current landscape of carried interest taxation, examines the proposed legislative changes, and explores their potential implications for investment managers and the broader financial industry.

Understanding Carried Interest

Carried interest refers to the share of profits that general partners (GPs) in investment funds receive, typically 20% of a fund’s profits, as a performance-based incentive and essentially compensation for the funds they manage. Currently, this income is taxed at long-term capital gains rate of 20%, rather than the higher ordinary income tax rates, which can reach up to 37%.

This preferential tax treatment has been a subject of debate. Critics argue this creates an unfair loophole that allows wealthy fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than regular wage earners, while supporters emphasize that carried interest reflects investment returns, not compensation for services.

Historical Context: A Long–Running Debate

The debate over carried interest taxation is not new. For over two decades, lawmakers have sought to increase the tax burden on carried interest, with various proposals surfacing in Congress.

• In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) imposed a three-year holding period requirement for carried interest to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment, making it harder for short-term investors to benefit.
• More recently, some proposals sought to treat carried interest as an interest-free loan from limited partners (LPs) to general partners, making it taxable upon grant rather than upon realization of profits. This would have also imposed deemed compensation in the form of imputed interest—effectively treating carried interest as a form of deferred salary. This proposal, however, did not become law.

Despite these past efforts, the fundamental structure of carried interest taxation has remained intact, largely due to industry pushback and concerns over economic repercussions.

Recent Legislative Proposals

On February 6, 2025, Democratic lawmakers introduced the Carried Interest Fairness Act. This legislation aims to reclassify income earned from carried interest as ordinary income, eliminating its preferential capital gains treatment. This subject carried interest to higher rates, including self-employment taxes, further increasing the tax burden on fund managers. Additionally, the fair market value of a partnership interest received in exchange for services would be included in gross income, affecting how profits interests are treated for tax purposes. It could potentially apply changes retroactively, impacting partnership agreements already in place.

The proposed change seeks to address concerns over tax equity and generate additional federal revenue. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers and President Donald Trump have also hinted at revisiting carried interest taxation as part of broader tax reform, signaling bipartisan interest in making changes. If enacted, these changes would force fund managers to pay significantly higher taxes on their carried interest earnings, making traditional compensation structures less attractive.

Understanding Both Sides of the Debate

Critics of the current tax treatment argue that carried interest is effectively a performance-based bonus rather than a return on invested capital, allowing fund managers to pay lower tax rates than ordinary wage earners. They contend that taxing carried interest as ordinary income would generate additional tax revenue to fund public services and infrastructure while addressing income inequality. Opponents further argue that capital gains tax rates were designed to incentivize long-term individual investment, not to serve as a tax break for fund managers’ earnings.

On the other hand, supporters maintain that carried interest is not compensation for services but rather a return on the entrepreneurial risk taken by general partners who structure and manage investments. They emphasize that fund managers already pay ordinary income tax on management fees, while carried interest rewards long-term investment and capital formation, particularly in real estate, venture capital, and infrastructure. Proponents also warn that retroactive tax changes would undermine tax predictability, discourage investment, and lead to capital flight as firms seek jurisdictions with more favorable policies.

Implications for the Investment Industry

If carried interest is reclassified as ordinary income, the financial landscape for investment managers and the broader economy could shift profoundly. Fund managers would face significantly higher tax burdens, cutting their earnings and potentially altering how firms structure compensation. As a result, investment strategies may evolve, with funds reconsidering long-term, capital-intensive projects in favor of shorter-term, lower-risk opportunities that generate quicker returns.

Beyond individual tax liabilities, these changes could force a structural overhaul of fund agreements and compensation models. Firms may explore alternative fee structures, such as higher management fees or revised partnership terms, to offset the impact of increased taxation. This could introduce new tensions between general partners and limited partners as investors weigh the cost-benefit of participating in funds with shifting financial incentives.

Altering the tax treatment of carried interest could reshape capital flows across industries on a broader scale. Proponents of the current system argue that preferential tax treatment fuels innovation, infrastructure development, and job creation, particularly in sectors that rely on patient capital, such as real estate and technology. If taxation dampens these incentives, investment capital may become more selective or even shift to jurisdictions with more favorable policies, potentially affecting U.S. competitiveness in global markets.

Ultimately, the proposed reforms are more than just tax policy—they challenge the fundamental dynamics of risk, reward, and capital formation in the investment world. Whether these changes lead to a fairer system or unintended economic consequences will depend on how firms and investors adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape.

Industry Response

The investment industry has voiced strong concerns over the potential economic and competitive fallout of taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Industry leaders argue that the current tax structure supports long-term investment and job creation, and higher taxes could discourage high-risk investments crucial to innovation and economic growth. There are also fears that such changes could weaken the global competitiveness of U.S.-based funds, prompting firms to shift capital to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Adding to the uncertainty is the possibility of retroactive tax applications which could disrupt financial planning and complicate existing partnership agreements.

Political Dynamics

The renewed push to reform carried interest taxation reflects a rare bipartisan alignment, increasing the likelihood of legislative action. Both parties see the potential for increased federal revenue, which could be directed toward public services or deficit reduction. Supporters of the change argue that taxing carried interest as ordinary income promotes fairness, ensuring fund managers pay tax rates comparable to wage earners. This political momentum signals a growing consensus that the current system may no longer be justifiable, setting the stage for potential policy shifts.

Key Takeaways

• Imminent Changes: Both legislative and executive branches are actively pursuing reforms to the taxation of carried interest, signaling potential changes in the near future.
• Preparation is Crucial: Investment managers should proactively assess the potential impact of these changes on their operations, including revisiting partnership agreements and compensation structures.
• Engage in Advocacy: Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in legislative discussions, providing insights into how proposed changes could affect the industry and the broader economy.
• Monitor Developments: Staying informed about legislative progress and potential enactment timelines is essential for strategic planning and compliance.

The Bottom Line

As the debate over carried interest taxation intensifies, investment managers are no longer debating whether carried interest taxation will change but rather when and how. Whether these reforms ultimately succeed or stall, the industry must be ready for a future where tax policies surrounding investment income are under greater scrutiny than ever before. The investment community must move beyond passive observation and actively shape the conversation, ensuring that policy decisions balance tax fairness with the economic realities of long-term investment.

Contact Arootah today to learn more about our tailored advisory services and take the next step toward peak performance.