New podcast series offers insight for investors and developers interested in tax credits and tax equity investing

Monarch Private Capital, a nationally recognized impact investment firm that develops, finances, and manages a diversified portfolio of projects generating both federal and state tax credits, announces the launch of its podcast, Monarch Perspectives. This new podcast aims to better inform investors and developers interested in impactful investing.

The podcast, hosted by Monarch Private Capital partners Steve LeClere and Rick Chukas, features interviews with industry experts to discuss timely topics and the latest updates that are pertinent to investors, developers and owners. The first three episodes of Monarch Perspectives are available today on all major podcast platforms.

“The world of investing can ebb and flow based on economic conditions and other factors, and it’s important that investors, developers and owners are abreast of these changes and evolving trends,” says George Strobel, co-founder and co-CEO of Monarch Private Capital. “We are excited to launch Monarch Perspectives to offer them unique assessments and insights on impact investing and how these investments drive real change.”

Episode one features Strobel and Monarch co-founder and co-CEO Robin Delmer discussing the company’s rich history in impact investing, the intricacies of federal and state tax credit programs, and how these credits are used to revitalize communities and create a more sustainable future.

In episode two, LeClere and Chukas interview Bryan Didier, Monarch partner and leader of the company’s Renewable Energy Division, to discuss the Inflation Reduction Act and the opportunities it presents for impact investors.

Philip Welker, Managing Director of BNA Associates, joins in episode three to shed light on historic tax credits and the challenges and benefits of historic tax credit transactions. Welker and his team have undertaken several historic projects, including the renovation of Atlanta’s Hotel Clermont. Additional episodes will be released in the coming months. For more information, visit www.monarchprivate.com.

About Monarch Private Capital

Monarch Private Capital manages impact investment funds that positively impact communities by creating clean power, jobs, and homes. The funds provide predictable returns through the generation of federal and state tax credits. The Company offers innovative tax credit equity investments for affordable housing, historic rehabilitations, renewable energy, film, and other qualified projects. Monarch Private Capital has long-term relationships with institutional and individual investors, developers, and lenders participating in these federal and state programs. Headquartered in Atlanta, Monarch has offices and professionals located throughout the United States.

by Ray Starling, President, NC Chamber Legal Institute

On April 3, 2023, the North Carolina Business Court issued a decisive victory for taxpayers in a long-running dispute with the North Carolina Department of Revenue over the state’s now-expired renewable energy tax credit program. The program was intended to encourage investment in North Carolina renewable energy projects. The Department originally supported the program, but after the program expired in 2017, the Department tried to claw back hundreds of millions of dollars in credits from taxpayers who had invested in renewable energy in response to the legislature’s incentives. The Chamber has watched these cases closely, and written about them here.

The taxpayer with the first dispute to reach the Business Court was the North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. The Chamber Legal Institute filed an amicus brief with the Business Court in the Farm Bureau case to protest the Department’s about-face and disregard of the legislature’s intent.

The tax credit program offered a credit equal to 35% of the cost of purchasing, leasing, or constructing renewable energy property. The tax credit statute specifically contemplated that a partnership could generate credits by constructing renewable energy property and pass the credits through to its partners. The credits were essential to attracting capital to projects that otherwise would not have made economic sense to investors. Project sponsors therefore worked with professional syndicators to find investors interested in the credits and pool them into partnerships that would then invest in the projects.

In its audits, the Department claimed the tax credit investors were not “bona fide partners” in their partnerships because they didn’t expect significant economic returns beyond the tax credits the projects would generate and because the investments were relatively low risk. In addition, the Department argued that even if the investors were true partners, they did not receive their credits through partnership allocations as the tax credit statute required but through improper “disguised sales.” The Department relied entirely on federal tax law to support its theories.

Business Court Judge Adam Conrad heard the Farm Bureau case on September 30, 2021, and released his decision in favor of the taxpayer on April 3, 2023.

Read the full article.

By George Strobel, Forbes Financial Council Member

Corporate boards are under intense pressure from shareholders and other constituents to invest in ways they can tout their environmental, social and governance (ESG) achievements. Inaction is not an option for most companies. Yet many boards are paralyzed in taking positive steps, fearing public scrutiny of those investments from both the political left and right could harm their company’s reputation and credibility. Is there a path through these political minefields for ESG-conscious boards?

Read the full article.

Published by Michael Novogradac on Wednesday, June 1, 2022

The expanding awareness and interest in ESG–environmental, social and governance–investing could lead to a seismic increase in investor demand for community development tax incentives, but we are not there yet. Syndicators of and investors in community development tax credits report that while the subject is at the forefront of most conversations, ESG motivations behind investment selection remains a work in progress.

“Today, it’s very, very important. Two years ago was a different story. I think COVID, along with a new administration, has thrown ESG to the forefront.”

“It’s very attractive to corporations to be able to [offset] their carbon footprint, achieve some of their environmental goals and also be able to generate a return off those investments.”

Melanie Beckman, Chief ESG Officer & Director, Tax Credit Investments

Read the full article.

By George Strobel, Forbes Financial Council Member

On March 28, in a decision that would put the U.S. solar industry on hold, the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam in response to a petition from a small California solar panel manufacturer, Auxin Solar. The investigation could result in tariffs of up to 250% on imports from these four countries, which account for more than 80% of all U.S. solar module imports. These tariffs could cripple solar deployment, threaten tens of thousands of U.S. jobs and make it virtually impossible for the Biden administration to meet its climate goals.

Read the full article.

By Ben Zachariah

In the world of tax equity investing, corporations need to consider how to account for the investments and report them to their stakeholders. Federal tax credit programs encourage private sector investment in a wide variety of projects that the government deems important, including renewable energy, low-income housing, and the preservation of historic buildings. But a labyrinth of accounting complexity often stands in the way of this critical private sector investment even as the federal government seeks to encourage it. There is one institution that has the capability to dramatically mitigate this quagmire – the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”). FASB can come to the rescue and unlock a wave of private sector investment by simplifying and clarifying the accounting treatment of these investments.

Most companies will report and issue financial statements using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Though tax equity investing has been around longer than many people realize, there has historically been little guidance or accounting pronouncements related to these investments. This creates a void whereby certain GAAP principles are then, by default, applied to tax equity investments. While all tax equity investments are economically net positive to the investing community, these default GAAP rules often create bizarre financial reporting results. This lack of accounting guidance and clarity often proves prohibitively difficult to sort out by overworked accountants and is standing in the way of broader corporate adoption of tax credit programs, such as the solar Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”). The solar ITC seeks to add significant amounts of renewable energy to our power grid.  Moreover, the application of some of these default rules distorts the true economics of the investment and artificially impacts the operating earnings of the investors.

FASB guides companies as they implement GAAP. The equity method of accounting is correctly applied to all tax equity investments. From there, the complexity often begins.

FASB is responsible for establishing and improving these GAAP methodologies. FASB is already aware of the accounting complexity associated with tax equity investments, and there has been some recent improvement and clarity for certain types of tax equity investment. One example that FASB has addressed is tax equity investments in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) program. In 2014, FASB announced Rule Update No. 2014-01, which allows LIHTC tax equity investors to use a GAAP method called proportional amortization. As the chart below illustrates, the adoption of proportional amortization accounting treatment for LIHTC investments has unlocked material investment in this critical market. FASB should expand this treatment to the broader tax credit market.

Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies (CDFA) Annual Volume Cap Report

In General, GAAP accounting for investments falls under one of three main categories: the cost method, the equity method, and the consolidation method. When it comes to tax equity investments, GAAP rules demand that we utilize the equity method of accounting.

All tax equity investments are driven by two goals: first, to enhance corporate earnings and cash flow by taking advantage of tax credits and other benefits proffered by Congress; and second, to invest in projects that fulfill the ESG aspirations of a company. The structure of tax equity investments is typically driven by the tax rules that govern a particular incentive. In all instances, the tax equity investment is made through an entity taxable as a partnership. Even though the tax equity investor will usually have a 99% interest in the tax equity fund, the equity method is followed in most instances because the investor interest in the tax equity fund possesses minimal management or decision-making rights. This allows the tax equity investor to receive 99% of the tax credits and other tax benefits (such as accelerated depreciation in the case of solar ITC). Even though the tax equity investor has a 99% ownership interest, they typically don’t have management responsibilities or significant control over the day-to-day operations of the project. That role is taken on by the sponsor of the project. Because of this, the equity method of accounting will be the default GAAP method most companies utilize to account for federal tax equity investments. 

Within this regime of treating the investment under the equity method, there are two choices a corporation can make: the flow-through method or the deferral method. Both methodologies come with inadvertent complexities that often kill potential transactions. Under both options, the initial investment is recorded as an investment in a partnership on the books of the company.

The flow-through method of accounting has served as the default to account for tax equity investments. Under this approach, the receipt of the tax credits by the investor simply flows through to the company’s tax provision and has no impact on the book value of the investment. Unfortunately, impairment issues often arise and can prove insurmountable.

While the flow-through method of equity accounting is relatively straightforward, there is no mechanism to account for an investment where most of the financial returns are tax credits and other tax benefits. Under the equity method of accounting, the investor records their investment at cost as an asset. Any cash distributions or financial returns are first applied against the investment cost, reducing the investment’s book value. Then, any income or loss is recognized on the company’s income statement. Once the investment’s book value is reduced to zero, any further distributions or financial returns are recognized as a component of net income before taxes. While this sounds straightforward, it can get complicated when tax credits and tax benefits (not cash) are the primary return metric. Tax credits and tax losses (not book losses) under the equity method don’t reduce your book investment. Instead, these tax benefits flow through to the investors and are typically reported “below the line” as part of net income after taxes. As a result, the company reports a reduction to income tax expense and a reduction to their income taxes payable since the federal tax credit reduces how much they owe to the federal government and is effectively a cash equivalent of paying your taxes. On the surface, this is a great answer as a direct reduction to income tax expense would positively impact the company’s Effective Tax Rate (“ETR”). However, the major issue is the initial investment sitting on the company’s books. As mentioned, the primary benefits to tax equity investors are the tax credit and tax losses. While there was some residual cash flow paid to the tax equity investor in the form of preferred returns and call/put options upon investment exit, the investor still ends up having a majority of the initial investment on their books. It’s at this point that the dreaded “I” word comes up, and which no CFO wants to hear: impairment. 

Because of the high book value of the investment sitting on the company’s financials, the most common way to remove the investment is to write it down through an impairment charge. The impairment expense is reported above the line and can often be reported as part of Net Operating Income, an important performance metric for many corporations. We now have a positive impact “below the line” from the tax credits and tax losses but a negative impact “above the line” from the impairment. In total, the overall impact is net positive, and there is a net positive impact to earnings per share (“EPS”) as the investments are economically accretive. However, this financial statement geography issue has given some corporate investors pause. Questions such as materiality and other factors play into a corporation’s tolerance to impairment, but in general, executives and corporate directors have found this to be a major issue. 

The deferral method is an attempt to reduce the impairment consequences of the flow-through method. Unfortunately, this does not completely mitigate the impairment issue, particularly if the price of a tax credit is more than one dollar per credit (as is the case with most solar ITC funds).

Under the deferral method of equity accounting, the flow-through of the ITC is a direct reduction to the tax equity investment’s book value with a corresponding reduction to income taxes payable (i.e., there is no income tax expense reduction). This is somewhat of a tradeoff because there won’t be a reduction to the ETR, but most, if not all, of the investment can be written down, often avoiding any impairment charge. This does not necessarily do away with the impairment issue because certain federal tax equity investments, like solar ITC, are invested at a premium to the credit (for example, 1.20 per dollar of ITC), so there would still be 20 cents of book investment that could be impaired, to the extent future expected cash flows from the investment would not exceed the 20 cents. While the deferral method may be a better answer than the flow-through method, it does not completely mitigate the impairment issue.

In a typical ownership structure, after a certain period, the tax equity investor’s 99% ownership interest will “flip” down to a significantly lower percentage (usually 5%). When the investor hits their targeted return yield or reaches a specific calendar date, the flip occurs, and the tax equity investor ownership interest is purchased by the sponsor. After this flip, the tax equity investor exits the deal.  This makes tax equity investments, in the eyes of GAAP accounting, what is known as a Variable Interest Entity (“VIE”) because of the ownership interest “flip.”

The application of VIE accounting rules proves to be the final straw for many prospective investors. This is because VIEs are subject to Hypothetical Liquidation at Book Value (“HLBV”) accounting, which only compounds the risk of impairment charges and complexity under both the flow-through and deferral methods. The complicated methodology is often the final, insurmountable hurdle and is proving to be a meaningful headwind for these government encouraged investments.

Since the investments are considered a VIE, they are subject to another GAAP rule known as HLBV accounting. In short, HLBV says that as of balance sheet measurement periods (quarterly and annual), you must determine what your VIE investment value would be at that time if it were to liquidate all its assets (assuming they’re worth their book values) and pay off all its debts. As discussed in a previous article, HLBV applied to tax equity is a solution seeking a problem that does not exist.  

The main takeaway on HLBV is that it can cause book values to be written back up based on their project-level book values under the terms of the project partnership agreement assuming the project is liquidated at the point in time being measured. Initially, this inevitably results in an artificial write-up and overstates operating income. Ultimately, the investment must be written back down over the life of the investment through impairment charges, which is confusing, costly, and unnecessary. 

These accounting complexities can create the illusion of a bad investment and understates a company’s true operating earnings. Furthermore, it does not reflect the economic reality of what tax equity investors are seeking to do, which is to lower their federal tax liability and contribute to funding investments that the federal government seeks to promote. 

Proportional amortization, which was adopted by FASB for treatment of low-income housing tax credit investments, offers investors relief from these accounting nightmares. It does away with the impairment issues and the need to apply HLBV to the investment.

Proportional amortization alleviates this income statement geography issue. The proportional amortization method allows the LIHTC tax equity investor to recognize the tax benefits (credits + losses) and any corresponding investment amortization “below the line.” The investment is realized in proportion to the amount of tax benefits received each year over the total expected tax benefits of the tax equity investment. Essentially, the net benefits each year from the investment will be recognized as a component of income tax expense. This reflects the economic reality and accurately shows the effects to the ETR. It makes sense FASB adopted this method for low-income housing tax credit investments. There is no reason a tax-motivated investment should impact anything other than the investing company’s tax provision.

If FASB were to expand the proportional amortization treatment across the spectrum of tax credits, it would unlock a wave of pent-up demand. Last September, FASB met to discuss the broader adoption of the proportional amortization method to other types of tax credit investments, and in a positive step forward, they added this to their Emerging Issues Task Force Agenda. FASB really can come to the rescue of the tax equity market. We sincerely hope they seize the initiative and follow through.

By Ryan Degnan, Senior Financial Operations Analyst

Georgia legislators have created a new incentive that can reduce federal tax liability. Georgia taxpayers can now benefit from an elective entity-level tax imposed on partnerships and S corporations. By moving the state tax liability of pass-through income to the entity level, individuals can reduce the amount of federal income reportable on their personal returns. This creates an avenue for partners and members of pass-through entities to work around the SALT (State and Local Tax) deduction limitation for federal purposes.

Background

The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 deduction limitation on the combined SALT paid for individual taxpayers. Corporate taxpayers are not subject to this limitation and can deduct all SALT paid as a business expense. Several states have enacted, or are considering the enactment of, tax laws that impose either a mandatory or elective entity-level income tax on partnerships and S corporations. In response, on November 9, 2020, the IRS released Notice 2020-75, in which it announced that it plans to issue proposed regulations to clarify that SALT imposed on and paid by a flow-through entity are allowed as a deduction by the flow-through entity in computing its federal taxable income or loss for the taxable year.

Georgia House Bill 149

On May 4, 2021, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed House Bill 149, announcing that Georgia will be the 11th state to adopt an entity-level tax for partnerships and S corporations. Georgia’s provisions are similar to several of the other states to previously pass legislation.

The entity-level tax in Georgia is imposed at the highest state income rate, 5.75%. To comply, all owners must annually submit a consent agreement with the electing entities tax return. The electing entity receives a federal deduction equal to the amount of state and local income tax paid, without limitation. The partners and members of the entity would not recognize the income that is subject to tax at the entity level on their individual Georgia tax returns. Similarly, partners and members lose the itemized state tax deduction for income taxes paid on the pass-through income.

Example

ABC partnership has two partners that are Georgia residents, each having a 50% ownership interest in ABC. ABC’s taxable income for the tax year 2022 is $2,000,000.

Analysis

We can see here that making the election shifts the state tax liability to ABC away from the individual taxpayers. The state rates under the traditional method factor in a graduated tax bracket up to the first $7,000 of income. The entity-level tax is imposed at 5.75% of all income. Therefore, the state tax liabilities are slightly different in each of the approaches. There is not expected to be a reduction in state income tax revenue resulting from entities making this election.

Under the traditional method, each partner has a Georgia liability of $57,327.50 (half of $114,827.50). However, they are both limited to a $10,000 federal deduction for SALT paid. They each lose a federal deduction of $47,327.50 in state taxes paid. In reality, assuming they pay properties taxes of $10,000 or more on their homes, they wouldn’t have benefited from any of the state income tax payment on their federal returns. If the entity-level tax election is made, ABC is allowed to deduct the entire $115,000.00 of state tax income tax on the partnership return as a business expense. This reduces the federal taxable income of ABC that is flowing through to the partners, ultimately resulting in a $42,550 federal tax savings.

It is important to remember that partners and members of electing entities can still benefit from deducting state sales tax and property taxes paid, up to $10,000, on their individual tax returns. This will lessen the effect of losing the state income tax deduction and maximize tax savings.

The hypothetical scenario presented here is an ideal situation, but the reality is usually not so cut and dry. So, what might be some disqualifiers for an entity deciding whether to make this election?

Drawback

HB 149 prohibits an electing entity or its owners from the credit for taxes paid in other jurisdictions, commonly known as reciprocity. What this means is that if an electing entity has owners in several states, the Georgia resident owners will benefit from the election at the expense of the non-resident owners. In this case, it is possible that the additional state tax burden for the non-residents could outweigh the federal tax savings. A non-resident partner or member will likely not consent to the entity-level election. This factor alone will limit the number of electing entities to ones predominately owned by Georgia residents.

In evaluating whether it is advisable to make the election to pay Georgia income tax at the entity level, there are several additional factors that should also be considered, including, but not limited to, using other state tax credits, charitable donations, making guaranteed payments to out of state partners and owner’s basis. Taxpayers should consult their tax advisors to determine the total effect of making the election.

Conclusion

The social, economic and political events of the last year have created a more dynamic work environment than ever before. Business owners are reconsidering how and where they are conducting operations. By passing HB 149, Georgia legislators have continued a trend being seen across the country of trying to attract business to their state, this time in the form of a tax incentive for owners of flow-through entities. The conditions of the bill will likely limit the number of electing entities, but those entities that meet the criteria now have an avenue to significantly reduce their federal tax liabilities through tax planning.

By George Strobel, Forbes Financial Council Member

Many people have heard of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. To a much lesser degree, investors have heard of tax credits and tax equity or tax credit investing. And even fewer investors are familiar with how to utilize tax credits or tax equity investing to accomplish their ESG goals, satisfy sustainability initiatives and mitigate their tax liability.

More importantly, with tax equity investing, ESG criteria and ESG impact can be quantified. Yes, you can direct how your tax dollars are to be used and measure their environmental and social impact. You can give your money a mission.

Tax Credits Background

Tax credits were created by the government to incentivize investment in areas such as renewable energy, historic rehabilitation and affordable housing by offering investors in these activities a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their tax liability. Corporations, financial institutions and insurance companies have long used tax credits to mitigate their federal and state tax liability while providing much needed capital for projects promoting clean energy, conveniently located quality workforce housing and historic renovations in communities across the country. Investments in these types of activities, where the primary return to the investor is the tax attributes of the investment, is referred to as tax equity investing.

Read the full article here.

By Melanie Beckman

Since its inception, the Missouri Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has provided quality affordable homes across the state to low income families, seniors, veterans, disabled and special needs individuals. With a new facelift, the program has been reinstated by the Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC) after nearly a three-year hiatus. Under the direction of former Governor Eric Greitens, the state LIHTC program was ended in an effort to curtail tax credit programs and the special interest groups that supported them. Greitens’ move to end the program was viewed as a political maneuver rather than one based on factual information. Since Greitens’ resignation in June 2018, newly appointed Governor Parson, the MHDC and other key members of Missouri’s legislative houses have been pushing for the reinstatement of the State LIHTC program, albeit with a few alterations to make the program more effective for Missouri taxpayers.

Background & Former Program

The Missouri LIHTC program started in 1990 under Section 135.350 to 135.363 RSMo. Devised to supplement the federal LIHTC program, which was enacted in 1986, the state program gave MHDC the ability to allocate state credits to match the annual federal allotment. The program began by allocating these state tax credits to projects equal to 20% of the federal total. In 1994, the number of state credits allocated increased up to 40% of the federal credit total, primarily to assist areas that lost housing in the 1993 flood. Beginning in 1997 and through 2018, the state credit was increased up to 100% of the federal credit for all areas.

Developers of a qualifying project to which the federal credit is allocated by MHDC through a selection criteria established by the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) receive a federal credit equal to 9% of the qualified basis of the project for ten years. For projects financed with tax-exempt bonds, the federal tax credit is reduced to equal 4% of the qualified basis. Projects seeking 9% credits are awarded on a competitive basis, as compared to projects seeking 4% credits, which are awarded based on the availability of tax-exempt bond financing. The credit is limited to a percentage of the qualified basis, based upon a depreciable basis, and the percentage of affordable units in the development. The minimum number of qualifying units is (1) 40% of the total number of units affordable to persons at 60% of the median income or (2) 20% affordable to persons at 50% of the median income, as stated in a report from the Missouri State Auditor’s Office.

The MHDC is responsible for the allocation of federal and state credits and assuring compliance with the regulations. The compliance process includes periodic physical inspections of the property, annual audits, as well as reviews of management and occupancy procedures during a minimum 15-year compliance period. The Missouri LIHTC is an allocable credit, meaning that transferability of the credit is completed by subscribing to the fund level partnership and receiving a K-1. Section 135.352 RSMo allows the credits to be carried back three years to offset prior tax liability or carried forward for five years to offset future tax liability. In addition, the tax credits may be redeemed against state income tax, corporate franchise tax, financial institution tax or insurance company premium tax.

The New Program

Over the past three years, key Missouri legislators have been brainstorming ideas on how to revise the old state LIHTC program in order to reduce the fiscal burden of the program without jeopardizing much- needed housing. What came out of those discussions are three main changes to the former QAP. 

First, the statewide credit match was reduced from up to 100% of the available and authorized allocated federal LIHTC to an amount up to 70% for 9% deals. Deals utilizing tax-exempt bonds for financing or “4% deals” have a ceiling cap of $3M per year. The amount of state LIHTCs approved for a development cannot exceed the Federal LIHTC amount authorized and is based on the financial feasibility needs analysis of the development by the MHDC.

Second, the MHDC is rolling out a credit redemption pilot program for the 2020 QAP applications, which are due October 30th. As per the QAP revisions from the MHDC, developers can submit their application under the standard redemption method and/or under the accelerated redemption method. Only 20% of the deals awarded credits will be under the accelerated method. What does this mean? Under the accelerated method, the state credit will match the federal credit during the first five years. The remaining allocated credits will be evenly spread across the last five-year credit period. In other words, more credits will be issued during the credit’s most valuable years. The Commission believes this will increase credit pricing, generating additional equity, and facilitating the construction of additional units.

Lastly, in order to establish a more even playing field and provide transparency as to why projects are selected and receive allocations, the MHDC has revised the scoring rubric’s “Credit Efficiency” criterion. Applications will be divided into four categories: (1) Family New Construction; (2) Senior New Construction; (3) Family Rehab; and (4) Senior Rehab. The average eligible LIHTC amount per LIHTC bedroom will be based on data from 2020 submitted applications, and a “safe harbor” will be set in place for each category at 2.5% above and 2.5% below the average for each respective category.

Benefits to Missouri Residents

Over 117,000 low income households in Missouri are without access to affordable rental housing, as reported by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Of this figure, 80% are working residents whose income is below the poverty guidelines, seniors and the disabled. A program like the Missouri LIHTC program provides more options and security for our residents by decreasing poverty, increasing overall community health, spurring economic investment and job creation, providing access to better education, along with giving Missourians a chance for a better life.

About Monarch Private Capital

Monarch Private Capital manages ESG funds that positively impact communities by creating clean power, jobs, and homes. The funds provide predictable returns through the generation of federal and state tax credits. The Company offers innovative tax credit equity investments for affordable housing, historic rehabilitations, renewable energy, film, and other qualified projects. Monarch Private Capital has long-term relationships with institutional and individual investors, developers, and lenders that participate in these types of federal and state programs. Headquartered in Atlanta, Monarch has offices and tax credit professionals located throughout the U.S.

Contact us for more information about impact investing, federal and state tax credits.