Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 10 MIN READ

The L3C at twelve: a post-mortem

A decade and two years after Vermont wrote the first statute, the low-profit LLC is a dead letter in everything but name

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
10 min read Updated
Contents 7 sections
  1. What the form was supposed to do, one more time
  2. The state map, with the count that finally matters
  3. What the 2016 PRI regulations actually settled
  4. The benefit corporation took the mission-driven lane
  5. What the L3C still does, narrowly
  6. What twelve years teaches
  7. Sources

he low-profit limited liability company is twelve years old this spring, and the honest accounting is that the form has failed. Vermont's April 2008 statute is still on the books, nine other states and a handful of tribal jurisdictions still recognize the designation, and roughly 1,700 L3Cs exist in the United States. None of that adds up to a living form. No new state has enacted L3C legislation since Rhode Island in 2012, North Carolina's repeal took effect in 2014 and has not been reversed, the IRS never blessed the federal tax shortcut the form was designed to produce, and benefit corporations have taken every seat at the mission-driven table. This is the twelve-year post-mortem.

What the form was supposed to do, one more time

The L3C was a state-law object designed to answer a federal tax question. The Internal Revenue Code requires private foundations to distribute roughly five percent of non-charitable-use assets each year and imposes an excise tax under IRC § 4944 on "jeopardizing investments" that are not prudent from an endowment standpoint. The program-related investment, defined at IRC § 4944(c) and regulated at Treas. Reg. § 53.4944-3, is the carve-out: an investment whose primary purpose is charitable, whose significant purpose is not the production of income or appreciation of property, and whose purpose is not political or legislative. A PRI counts toward the payout requirement and escapes the jeopardy excise tax. Making one safely has, since 1969, required either a private letter ruling or the comfort of outside tax counsel willing to opine on the facts.

Robert Lang's 2008 pitch, which Vermont carried into Act 106 of the 2007 to 2008 biennium, was to write a state LLC whose statutory operating-agreement language mirrored the three prongs of § 4944(c). The theory: once the state statute forces mission primacy, incidental-income, and no-politics by operation of law, a foundation writing a check to an L3C inherits the PRI analysis from the statute itself and can skip the individual determination. The form was engineered as a regulatory shortcut.

The shortcut never opened. Treasury officials said from early on, in remarks at tax section meetings and in responses to comments on the 2012 proposed regulations, that PRI status is a federal facts-and-circumstances test and state law cannot convert it into a checkbox. The IRS has not issued a Revenue Ruling, a Revenue Procedure, or a Notice treating L3C status as probative of PRI qualification in the twelve years since Vermont enacted. A foundation investing in an L3C in 2020 runs the same diligence it runs for a plain LLC, and pays the same legal fees. We walked through the mechanics in the November 2016 original and again in the July 2018 revisit; the intervening twenty months have not changed the legal picture.

The state map, with the count that finally matters

Ten state statutes currently authorize the L3C designation: Vermont, Michigan, Wyoming, Utah, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Rhode Island, North Dakota, and Kansas, plus Missouri's provisions in Chapter 347 of the Revised Statutes. Puerto Rico and the Crow and Oglala Sioux tribal jurisdictions round out the list. Rhode Island, enacted in 2012, was the last adoption. No state has passed L3C legislation in the subsequent seven years and change. Bills introduced in Oregon, Washington, New York, and Arkansas during the 2011 to 2014 window all died in committee. The pipeline is not quiet anymore. It is empty.

North Carolina is still the only state that repealed. Chapter 57C of the North Carolina General Statutes, which had authorized the L3C, was replaced by Chapter 57D effective January 1, 2014, and the new chapter omits the L3C definition and naming rule. The North Carolina Bar Association's drafting commentary at the time explained the omission bluntly: a properly drafted ordinary LLC could do anything an L3C could do, and the federal tax baggage the designation implied outweighed the signaling benefit. Grandfathered L3Cs survived in name but lost their statutory basis. Six years on, the repeal has not been revisited, and no legislator has introduced a bill to restore the form.

The counted-entity picture is what tells the story. InterSector Partners, which maintains the most comprehensive state-by-state L3C census, has the active count somewhere around 1,700 in early 2020, up from roughly 1,550 in mid-2018 and roughly 1,050 in mid-2014. The six-year delta is real but modest. Growth concentrates in Illinois, Wyoming, and Michigan, with Vermont's home-state count essentially flat since 2015. No L3C state is seeing triple-digit annual formation volumes. For comparison, Delaware alone processes more than 200,000 LLC filings a year. The L3C is not a rounding error in the American entity population, but it is a vanishing one.

What the 2016 PRI regulations actually settled

TD 9762, published at 81 Fed. Reg. 24014 on April 25, 2016, finalized nine new examples at Treas. Reg. § 53.4944-3(b), numbered Examples 11 through 19, and left largely intact the proposed rule Treasury had put out in April 2012. The final examples cover a deliberately heterogeneous set of fact patterns: a recoverable grant to a non-United-States subsidiary pursuing public health, an equity investment in a for-profit educational business, a high-interest loan to a food-cooperative startup, a subordinated loan to a disaster-recovery company, and several others. Every example uses generic "Corporation" and "LLC" recipients. None uses the L3C label. The rule's effect on the L3C, four years in, has been to demonstrate that the shortcut the L3C was designed to produce became unnecessary for every PRI recipient at once, because the regulations expanded what plain LLCs and corporations can do under the § 4944(c) framework.

The regulated community absorbed that reading quickly. The Council on Foundations' April 2016 analysis of TD 9762 concluded that the expanded examples reduced the need for private letter rulings on novel PRI structures across the board. Philanthropy counsel at large law firms updated their diligence templates in 2016 and 2017 to reference the new examples. None of that referenced the L3C designation as meaningful for PRI qualification. In the four years since, the Service has not issued sub-regulatory guidance on PRIs that would reopen the question, and the private letter rulings that have come out continue to turn on the operating documents and the economic terms of the particular deal.

The irony, twelve years in, is that the PRI reform the L3C's designers wanted did happen. It happened in the Federal Register in April 2016, it helped every foundation making every PRI into every kind of recipient, and it made the L3C less necessary rather than more. The form's central pitch was vindicated and obsoleted in the same regulatory stroke.

The benefit corporation took the mission-driven lane

While the L3C map stopped growing, benefit-corporation statutes kept spreading. By early 2020, 36 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted benefit-corporation legislation, with Kentucky, Texas, and Wisconsin among the most recent adopters from the 2017 to 2018 cycle. B Lab, the nonprofit that launched the form in Maryland in 2010 and runs the separate Certified B Corporation certification, tracks the statutes on a rolling basis. Delaware's 2013 public benefit corporation statute at 8 Del. C. § 362 has become, in practice, the default form for venture-backed mission-aligned companies, mirroring Delaware's dominance in ordinary corporate formation.

Counting is harder on the benefit side because not every state publishes the form-type breakdown of its entity registrations, but the order of magnitude is not close. Benefit corporations in the aggregate pass the L3C population and are still growing. Certified B Corporations, a separate category that sits on top as a certification rather than a legal form, number more than 3,000 globally as of early 2020. When a founder today asks a formation attorney for "a B Corp," the attorney almost always interprets the request as a benefit-corporation filing, often in Delaware, and the conversation proceeds to the operating agreement or charter. "L3C" rarely comes up, and when it does the attorney usually talks the client out of it.

The structural reasons are the same ones that were visible in 2016 and 2018, and they have calcified. A benefit corporation is a corporation, so venture investors can price it, preferred stock can be issued, and a 1202 exit is possible. A benefit corporation's directors owe a statutory duty to consider stakeholder interests, which is enforceable in court and backed in most states by an annual public benefit report. The L3C is an LLC whose operating agreement tracks statutory language that a plain LLC's operating agreement could also track, with no reporting regime, no certification, no distinct federal tax treatment, and no institutional investor recognition. On signaling, diligence, and exit optionality, the benefit corporation wins all three.

What the L3C still does, narrowly

The form is not legally dead. Its statutes still work, its filings still go through, and the L3Cs currently on the books continue to operate without difficulty. For three narrow use cases, forming an L3C in 2020 is still defensible.

The first is a funder-request case. A specific foundation, often one with a long institutional history around impact investing, sometimes asks for an L3C recipient by name, usually as a diligence shortcut or as a matter of internal policy. If the check is large enough and the operational state is an L3C state, the form works. It is a narrow lane that is shrinking as foundations update their internal diligence templates to reference TD 9762 rather than state-law labels.

The second is a Vermont or Michigan local-operations case, where the company plans to operate only within an L3C state, has a clear charitable purpose fitting IRC § 170(c)(2)(B), and wants the statutory mission-primacy language in the formation document rather than negotiated into an operating agreement. The signaling value inside the state is real, even if it evaporates outside the state.

The third is a naming case. Founders occasionally want the "L3C" suffix on the entity name for marketing or donor-communication reasons. The form delivers that, and only the form delivers that. It does not deliver anything else the founder cannot get from a well-drafted LLC with a mission-primacy clause.

Outside those three lanes, the L3C in March 2020 is a worse choice than an LLC or a benefit corporation on every measurable axis: no federal tax advantage, no institutional capital access, no broad state recognition, no certification regime, and the foreign- qualification problem that any L3C operating outside its home state registers as a plain LLC and loses the naming advantage it was formed to carry.

What twelve years teaches

The L3C's failure is not a failure of mission-aligned entities. It is a failure of a specific legislative theory: that a state can engineer a federal tax outcome by statutory drafting alone, and that form designers can build a shortcut around a facts-and-circumstances federal test. The IRS did not play along, and once the April 2016 regulations expanded the PRI framework for every recipient, the shortcut was no longer a shortcut.

The benefit corporation succeeded against the same mission-aligned demand curve because it did not try to cheat a federal determination. It changed state corporate law in ways that corporate law is allowed to change, invited B Lab to run a parallel certification that layered on reputation effects, and let the tax answers fall where federal law already placed them. Twelve years of legislative history, and one comparison, is the whole lesson.

Vermont's Act 106 will almost certainly remain on the statute books for the foreseeable future. Repealing a statute that no longer produces meaningful filings is legislative work no one has an incentive to do. Michigan and Illinois will continue to process a trickle of L3C filings each year, and Americans for Community Development will continue to maintain its website. The form will quietly be there, and almost no one will form one. That is what a legal post-mortem looks like when the patient stays technically alive.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.