I. Introduction

It has been over two decades since debate erupted in prestigious law journals, tax notes, and Congressional committees about a little known but highly controversial tax rule pertaining to the “carried interest” component of compensation paid to the managing partners of private investment partnerships, more commonly known as private equity funds.

Under current tax rules, carried interest is taxed at a capital gains tax rate of 23.8% rather than at much higher ordinary income tax rate of up to 40.8%. Supporters of this rule claim that it is a just reward for the risks undertaken by the sponsors and managers of these investment funds. Opponents claim that the tax preference awarded to carried interest is basically a veiled subsidy to the managers of private equity funds, whose income should be taxed at the higher ordinary income rate.

Private equity funds constitute an important sector of the U.S. economy. They own or partner with no less than 21,000 portfolio companies, employ over 13 million workers (mostly in companies with fewer than 500 employees,) and account for 7 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.[1]

The debate over the appropriate tax status of the managers of private equity funds remains unresolved in the halls of Congress in the sense that the decades-long defense of the current carried interest tax preference by the investment industry has not deterred opponents from repeatedly filing legislation that would change the rule.

With the recent submission of yet another bill in Congress to reform the carried interest tax regime (Ending the Carried Interest Loophole Act of 2026), this debate has taken on immediate import and increased public scrutiny – as it has in previous Presidential and mid-term election years.

The issues involved in the carried interest tax controversy include matters pertaining to partnership law, a tax preference for some of the nation’s wealthiest citizens, tax revenue loss for the federal government, the power and influence of great wealth in Congressional rulemaking, and whether the current carried interest tax regime is consistent with foundational values underlying our democracy.

Both supporters and critics of the current carried interest tax rule have tended to focus their arguments on the law and economics involved. Less attention has explicitly been paid to the multi-faceted principle of fairness in discussing the choices that an historically reluctant Congress will need to make in considering the recently submitted reform bill. The principle of fairness is, of course, foundational to all democracies.

READ MORE »