Raj Tanden is a partner and business lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP, where he represents clients in corporate and tax matters across a broad spectrum of domestic and cross-border transactions. Mr. Tanden chairs the firm’s Southern California Tax Practice. His practice includes assisting clients with investment management transactions, including the formation of and investments by public and private investment funds and investors. Mr. Tanden advises business development companies, closely held businesses, public and private investment funds and real estate investment trusts (REITs). He has particular experience with retail, beauty and apparel companies, and also represents health care professionals and practices.
IRS Private Letter Rulings Experience

Mr. Tanden has received several, innovative U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private letter rulings on behalf of clients, including:

One of the first rulings that a publicly-registered, non-traded REIT may adopt a “multi-class” structure similar to those used by mutual funds
Other rulings applicable to REITs, including that a target C corporation may issue a note to distribute out all of its historic “earnings and profits” before its acquisition by a REIT, as long as the target’s historic business and assets would be used to repay the note after the acquisition
Rulings on behalf of public investment funds, including the following: the first rulings issued by the IRS that an acquiring mutual fund need not retain any assets of a target fund under the “continuity of business enterprise” doctrine; and that cancellation of indebtedness income would constitute qualifying income
Rulings that taxpayers subject to SEC Rule 144A restrictions on the sale of stock in a publicly-traded company may use the “installment method” for the sale, even though the method cannot be used for publicly-traded property
Rulings on like-kind exchanges, including the following: a tenant may exchange commercial leasehold interests where a third-party would pay a substantial sum to build out the tenant’s new space (also known as a “build to suit”); and an accommodator would not be disqualified from completing like-kind exchanges for paying a referral fee to brokers who also own equity in the accommodator