44% of dealmakers say favorable tax treatment of carried interest income needs to go

History nerds, this one’s for you.

“A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” is a famous line from Winston Churchill's 1939 radio speech about Russia’s role in World War II. That’s sort of how I feel about tax season, inside the private markets, wrapped in an election year.

Thanks to Semaphore’s 16th annual confidence survey of more than 1,400 private equity, venture capital, hedge fund, and other professionals, we do have some visibility into a long-standing private markets argument: the debate over how carried interest income should (or shouldn’t) be taxed.

Forty-four percent of dealmakers say “yes” that favorable tax treatment of carried interest income should be eliminated, while 56% say “no,” according to Semaphore’s survey. (Semaphore is a firm that takes over troubled private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds on behalf of limited partners.)

Here’s the essence of the debate around carried interest income and how it should be taxed, if at all: There are two camps, Citco Group managing director Tim Eberle explained to me. On one side, you have the folks who say that not taxing carried interest income is another way the rich don’t pay the taxes they should, and that this is a “loophole” in the tax code. On the other side, you have people who say “no,” that making investments is their work and that they’re getting paid the way we all do. And not only are they not using a so-called tax loophole, they’re actually following the letter of the law.

“It's a very hot-button issue,” Eberle told me. “The common theme that I have the most sympathy with is that it's not necessarily an issue with private equity or carried interest. It's an issue with the tax code.”

In the survey comments section, what some of you had to say anonymously ranged from “It drives growth in small business” to “Rich need to pay their fair share” to “We should go to a flat tax.” In an election year, this debate will only ratchet up as politicians take sides, Eberle added.

“It becomes a talking point, usually on the Democratic side, about closing the carried interest loophole, and then it gets wrapped up in the conversation about taxes in general,” he said.

So, to recap: Get ready for a year of loud debate over taxing carried interest income. And part of the debate has long linked back to an argument of definitions—is the “carried interest loophole” a loophole, or just the letter of the law? Personally, I’m amused by the linguistic hair-splitting, but it also strikes me as a distinction without a difference—what’s legal remains the same. And, anyway, why doesn’t the tax code provide clarity?

Eberle laughs: “Have you read the tax code?”

If you’re interested in looking through the full results of Sempahore’s annual survey, you can find them here.

In case you (somehow) missed it…Taylor Swift—I mean, the Kansas City Chiefs—won the Super Bowl, beating the San Francisco 49ers in a nail-biter. Fun fact: I learned from Crunchbase last week that Travis Kelce, Chiefs player and Swift’s boyfriend, has invested in several startups, including indoor rowing machine maker Hydrow and Mexico City-based fantasy sports company Draftea.

See you tomorrow,

Allie Garfinkle
Twitter: @agarfinks
Email: alexandra.garfinkle@fortune.com
Submit a deal for the Term Sheet newsletter here.

Joe Abrams curated the deals section of today's newsletter.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com