Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 7 MIN READ

The L3C, fifteen years in: a reappraisal

A low-profit LLC was supposed to unlock foundation capital; nine states adopted it, then the idea went quiet

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
7 min read Updated
Contents 7 sections
  1. What the L3C was built to do
  2. The nine states that signed up
  3. Why the IRS never blessed the form
  4. What displaced it
  5. Federal reporting: no carve-out
  6. When an L3C still makes some sense
  7. Sources

he low-profit limited liability company, or L3C, is a state-law LLC with a charitable tether written into its purpose clause. Vermont authorized it in April 2008, nine states followed, and no state has passed an L3C statute since 2012.

That is the whole shape of the thing. A decade and a half after Vermont, the L3C is a curiosity in the entity-type catalog rather than a vehicle anyone picks by default.

What the L3C was built to do

The L3C was reverse-engineered out of a corner of the private-foundation rules. Under Treasury Regulation § 53.4944-3, a private foundation can make a program-related investment, or PRI, without tripping the jeopardizing-investments excise tax of IRC § 4944. A PRI has to meet three tests: its primary purpose is charitable, no significant purpose is the production of income or appreciation of property, and no purpose is lobbying or electioneering. PRIs count toward the five-percent annual distribution requirement the same way a grant does, and they come back as repaid capital rather than staying gone.

The pitch for the L3C was that it would do the PRI tests on its face. Vermont's statute, at 11 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 3001(27), requires that an L3C "significantly furthers the accomplishment of one or more charitable or educational purposes," that "no significant purpose of the company is the production of income or the appreciation of property," and that "no purpose of the company is to accomplish one or more political or legislative purposes." The three statutory prongs mirror § 53.4944-3 word for concept. A foundation writing a PRI check into a vehicle whose operating agreement and certificate both recite those prongs was supposed to be able to skip most of the diligence it would otherwise do to document the investment.

The theory was good. The execution depended on the IRS agreeing, and the IRS never did.

The nine states that signed up

Vermont went first with Act 106 in 2008. Michigan followed in 2008, Illinois and Utah in 2009, Louisiana and Wyoming in 2010, Maine in 2011, North Carolina in 2010 (with a 2014 repeal that took it out of the count for later purposes), and Rhode Island in 2012. That gave the L3C a presence in nine jurisdictions at peak.

Rhode Island was the last state to enact. No state has adopted an L3C statute in the years since. Several states that considered bills let them die in committee, and North Carolina, which had enacted one in 2010, repealed its statute in 2014 after the American Bar Association's Business Law Section Committee on LLCs concluded the form was redundant. The trajectory since has been flat to declining. Americans for Community Development, the advocacy group that has tracked L3C registrations state by state, counted roughly 1,800 active L3Cs nationally in its 2022 tallies, a figure that has moved only modestly over several years.

One thousand eight hundred entities across the entire United States is a rounding error next to regular LLC formations, which clear into seven figures annually in a single mid-sized state.

Why the IRS never blessed the form

The L3C's selling point always required a regulator to say that investing foundation capital into an entity with the statutory triple recital was safer than investing into an ordinary LLC with the same recitals in its operating agreement. The IRS declined to draw that line.

Treasury did, eventually, update the PRI examples. TD 9762, published at 81 Fed. Reg. 24014 on April 25, 2016, adopted final regulations adding nine new PRI examples to § 53.4944-3. The examples broadened the range of recognizably charitable investments, including equity in a for-profit company developing a vaccine for a disease primarily affecting poor populations, a loan to a social enterprise selling affordable housing, and a deposit in a low-income community credit union. None of the examples named an L3C. None of them turned on whether the recipient's state-law label included the charitable-purpose prongs. The message a careful foundation lawyer took from TD 9762 was that the PRI analysis depends on the facts of the deal and the foundation's own diligence record, not on the entity badge of the recipient.

Without a favorable revenue ruling or regulation specifically blessing the L3C form, the foundation counsel community settled into a defensive posture. A foundation making a PRI into an L3C still writes the same memo it would write for a PRI into an ordinary LLC: it documents the charitable purpose, the absence of significant income motive, the absence of lobbying purpose, and the expenditure-responsibility procedures if required. The L3C badge saves no step.

What displaced it

Two things happened after Rhode Island.

The first is that the benefit corporation and public benefit corporation spread quickly through the state legislatures. Maryland enacted a benefit-corporation statute in 2010, Delaware added the public benefit corporation at 8 Del. C. § 362 in 2013, and by the early 2020s more than thirty states had passed one or the other. The PBC sat in the place the L3C had been aiming for: a for-profit entity whose purpose clause is bound to a public benefit, with directors who owe a balancing duty to shareholders, beneficiaries, and the specified public benefit. The PBC talked to a bigger audience (mission-committed founders, impact investors, B Corp certifiers) and did not require the IRS to agree to anything.

The second is that the regular LLC, drafted with care, turned out to do the same job the L3C was supposed to do. A mission-committed LLC can write the three PRI prongs directly into its operating agreement and its certificate of formation in any state. A foundation's counsel still has to build the same PRI memo either way; the state-law label does not do the work. Once that was understood, the L3C lost most of its reason to exist as a distinct form.

Federal reporting: no carve-out

The L3C is an LLC for every federal purpose. It files taxes the way any LLC files taxes (as a disregarded entity, a partnership, an S-corp, or a C-corp, depending on elections). It is treated as a standard reporting company under 31 U.S.C. § 5336, the Corporate Transparency Act, with beneficial-ownership reporting obligations to FinCEN.

The CTA's twenty-three exemptions at § 5336(a)(11)(B) include banks, credit unions, securities issuers, registered investment companies, insurance companies, tax-exempt organizations described in IRC § 501(c), and a short list of others. None of the twenty-three touches the L3C. A foundation that creates or invests in an L3C has the same beneficial-ownership reporting picture it has for any other LLC in its portfolio. Whatever marginal prestige the L3C label once carried, it confers no regulatory distinction at the federal level.

State-level filings are similarly ordinary. Vermont requires the L3C to file an annual report and pay the LLC annual fee like any other LLC, and the same is true in the other adopting states. The only distinctive feature at the state level is the statutory purpose language. That language is easier to replicate in a standard LLC operating agreement than it is to import by forming in a state that has the L3C statute.

When an L3C still makes some sense

The honest shortlist is short.

If the organizing party is a foundation that has a specific stated preference for the L3C badge (some foundations do, for historical reasons rather than legal ones), forming one in an adopting state costs no more than forming a regular LLC and can avoid a small negotiating step. If the operating theory of the business is that foundation capital will be its only or its primary source of outside investment, and the founder wants the statutory recital on the face of the certificate as a marketing signal, the L3C delivers that signal. If the business is a Michigan-specific or Vermont-specific operation that wants to signal localness to state funders, the L3C can carry a modest amount of local goodwill.

For almost every other fact pattern (a social enterprise seeking outside equity, a hybrid venture that wants to talk to impact investors, a mission-committed founder who wants a durable purpose clause), the public benefit corporation or a thoughtfully drafted regular LLC does the same work without the specialized state registration or the reputational ambiguity.

The L3C was a clever statutory design aimed at a specific regulatory interpretation that never arrived. Vermont's drafters were trying to preempt an IRS blessing that the IRS chose not to give. Fifteen years on, it is reasonable to read the form as a piece of entity-law history rather than a live option. For a founder choosing an entity in 2023, the L3C is worth knowing exists and worth leaving on the shelf.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.