HomeDBE ProgramDBE Final Rule

DBE Final Rule

Section 26.69 What Rules Govern Determinations of Ownership?

Commenters on the ownership provisions of the SNPRM addressed a variety of points. Most commenters agreed that the general burden of proof on applicants should be the preponderance of the evidence. A few commenters thought that this burden should also apply in situations where a firm was formerly owned by a non-disadvantaged individual. For some of these situations, the SNPRM proposed the higher ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard, because of the heightened opportunities for abuse involved. The Department believes this safeguard is necessary, and we will retain the higher standard in these situations.

Commenters asked for more guidance in evaluating claims that a contribution of expertise from disadvantaged owners should count toward the required 51 percent ownership. They cited the potential for abuse. The Department believes that there may be circumstances in which expertise can be legitimately counted toward the ownership requirement. For example, suppose someone with a great deal of expertise in a computer-related field, without whom the success of his or her high- tech start-up business would not be feasible, receives substantial capital from a non-disadvantaged source.

We have modified the final rule provision to reflect a number of considerations. Situations in which expertise must be recognized for this purpose are limited. The expertise must be outstanding and in a specialized field: everyday experience in administration, construction, or a professional field is unlikely to meet this test. (This is not a ``sweat equity'' provision.) We believe that it is fair that the critical expertise of this individual be recognized in terms of the ownership determination. At the same time, the individual must have a significant financial stake in the company. This program focuses on entrepreneurial activity, not simply expertise. While we will not designate a specific percentage of ownership that such an individual must have, entrepreneurship without a reasonable degree of financial risk is inconceivable.

The SNPRM's proposals on how to treat assets obtained through inheritance, divorce, and gifts were somewhat controversial. Most comments agreed with the proposal that assets acquired through death or divorce be counted. One commenter objected to the provision that such assets always be counted, saying that the owner should have to make an additional demonstration that it truly owned the assets before the recipient counted them. We do not see the point of such an additional showing. If a white male business owner dies, and his widow inherits the business, the assets are clearly hers, and the deceased husband will play no further role in operating the firm. Likewise, assets a woman obtains through a divorce settlement are unquestionably hers. Absent a term of a divorce settlement or decree that limits the customary incidents of ownership of the assets or business (a contingency for which the proposed provision provided), there is no problem for which an additional showing of some sort by the owner would be a useful remedy.

A majority of comments on the issue of gifts opposed the SNPRM proposal, saying that gifts should not be counted toward ownership at all. The main reason was that allowing gifts would make it easier for fronts to infiltrate the program. Some comments also had a flavor of opposition to counting what commenters saw as unearned assets. The Department understands these concerns. If a non-disadvantaged individual who provides a gift is no longer connected with the business, or a disadvantaged individual makes the gift, the issue of the firm being a potential front is much reduced. Where a non- disadvantaged individual makes a gift and remains involved with the business, the concern about potential fronts is greater.

For this reason, the SNPRM erected a presumption that assets acquired by gift in this situation would not count. The applicant could overcome this presumption only by showing, through clear and convincing evidence--a high standard of proof--that the transfer was not for the purpose of gaining DBE certification and that the disadvantaged owner really controls the company. This provides effective safeguards against fraud, without going to the unfair extreme of creating a conclusive presumption that all gifts are illegitimate. Also, for purposes of ownership, all assets are created equal. If the money that one invests in a company is really one's own, it does not matter whether it comes from the sweat of one's brow, a bank loan, a gift or inheritance, or hitting the lottery. As long as there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect against fronts--and we believe the rule provides them--the origin of the assets is unimportant. We are adopting the proposed provisions without change.

Commenters were divided about how to handle marital property, especially in community property states. Some commenters believed that such assets should not be counted at all. This was based, in part, on the concern that allowing such assets to be counted could make it difficult to screen out interspousal gifts designed to set up fronts, even if irrevocable transfers of assets were made. Other commenters said they thought the proposal was appropriate, and some of these thought the requirement for irrevocable transfers was unfair.

The Department is adopting the proposed language. In a community property state, or elsewhere where property is jointly held between spouses, the wife has a legal interest in a portion of the property. It is really hers. It would be inappropriate to treat this genuine property interest as if it did not exist for purposes of DBE ownership.

To ensure the integrity of the program, it is necessary to put safeguards in place. The regulation does so. First, recipients would not count more assets toward DBE ownership than state law treats as belonging to the wife (the final rule provision adds language to this effect). Second, the irrevocable transfer requirement prevents the husband from being in a position to continue to claim any ownership rights in the assets. If an irrevocable transfer of assets constitutes a gift from a non-disadvantaged spouse who remains involved in the business, then the presumption/clear and convincing evidence mechanism discussed above for gifts would apply to the transaction. If recipients in community property states wanted to establish a mechanism for allocating assets between spouses that was consistent with state law, but did not require court involvement or other more formal procedures, they could propose doing so as part of their DBE programs, subject to operating administration approval.

Most commenters supported the SNPRM's proposal concerning trusts, particularly the distinction drawn between revocable living and irrevocable trusts. One commenter favored counting revocable living trusts when the same disadvantaged individual is both the grantor and beneficiary. The Department believes there is merit in making this exception. If the same disadvantaged individual is grantor, beneficiary, and trustee (i.e., an individual puts his own money in a revocable living trust for tax planning or other legitimate purposes and he alone plays the roles of grantor, beneficiary, and trustee), the situation seems indistinguishable for DBE program purposes from the situation of the same individual controlling his assets without the trust. In all other situations, revocable living trusts would not count.

Some comments asked for clarification of the 51 percent ownership requirement, a subject on which the Department has received a number of questions over the years. The Department has clarified this requirement, with respect to corporations, by stating that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals must own 51 percent of each class of voting stock of a corporation, as well as 51 percent of the aggregate stock. A similar point applies to partnerships and limited liability companies. This latter type of company was not mentioned in the SNPRM, but a commenter specifically requested clarification concerning it. (We have also noted, in Sec. 26.83, that limited liability companies must report changes in management responsibility to recipients. This is intended to include situations where management responsibility is rotated among members.) These clarifications are consistent with SBA regulations.

There are some ownership issues (e.g., concerning stock options and distribution of dividends) that SBA addresses in some detail in its regulations (see 13 CFR Sec. 124.105 (c), (e), (f)) that were not the subject of comments to the DOT SNPRM. These issues have not been prominent in DOT certification practice, to the best of our knowledge, so we are not adding them to the rule. However, we would use the SBA provisions as guidance in the event such issues arise.

Prev | Index | Next