All States 1031 Exchange Facilitators logo
1031 Exchanges Construction Exchanges Reverse Exchanges Tenants in Common 1031 Exchange News & Events

Posts Tagged ‘bankruptcy’

Like-kind exchange relief for those snared by QIs in bankruptcy or receivership

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS has at long last granted relief for taxpayers who were unable to timely complete a like-kind exchange because their qualified intermediary (QI) entered into bankruptcy or receivership. IRS will not treat taxpayers as being in actual or constructive receipt of exchange proceeds if they cannot complete an exchange because of a default of a QI in bankruptcy or receivership. Affected taxpayers may use a special safe harbor method to report gain or loss.

The IRS received many comments on this issue and has been promising action on it for a long time.  As far back as 2007, when the real estate market started heading south in many areas, the IRS wrote Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to say that IRS was considering whether it was appropriate for it to extend relief where QIs went bankrupt.  In substantially similar letters written to a number of Washington legislators in mid-2009, the IRS again said it was considering relief measures.

Background.  In general, no gain or loss is recognized on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if the property is exchanged solely for property of a like kind which is held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. (Code Sec. 1031)  Under Code Sec. 1031(a)(3), for a deferred exchange to be treated as tax-free, a taxpayer must identify the replacement property within 45 days of the transfer of the relinquished property and must acquire the replacement property by the earlier of 180 days after the date on which the taxpayer transfers the property relinquished in the exchange, or the due date (determined with regard to extensions) of the taxpayer’s federal income tax return for the year in which the transfer of the relinquished property occurs.  Absent relief, if the statutory timing requirements are met, a taxpayer would have to treat the relinquished property as having been disposed of in a taxable sale or exchange.

The regulations allow a taxpayer to use a QI to facilitate a like-kind exchange. (Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(4))  When a taxpayer uses a QI, generally he will transfer the relinquished property to the QI, who sells the property to a buyer.  The QI then takes the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property, buys the replacement property, and transfers the replacement property to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer receives the replacement property within the period in Code Sec. 1031(a)(3) and meets the other Code Sec. 1031 requirements, he is treated as having engaged in a like-kind exchange of property with the QI and he will not recognize gain on the exchange.

Victims of the recession and the troubled real estate markets. In Rev Proc 2010-14, IRS says it is aware of situations in which taxpayers initiated like-kind exchanges by transferring relinquished property to a QI but were unable to complete the exchanges within the statutory time period solely due to the failure of the QI to acquire and transfer replacement property to the taxpayer (a “QI default”). In many of these cases, the QI enters bankruptcy or receivership, thus preventing the taxpayer from obtaining immediate access to the relinquished property’s sale proceeds.

The IRS says it’s generally of the view that in such situations, a taxpayer should not have to recognize gain from the failed exchange until the tax year in which he receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property.

Who is entitled to relief. A taxpayer is entitled to relief under Rev Proc 2010-14 if he:

(1) Transferred relinquished property to a QI in accordance with Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(4).

(2) Properly identified replacement property within the identification period (unless the QI default occurs during that period).

(3) Did not complete the like-kind exchange solely because of a QI default involving a QI that becomes subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or a receivership proceeding under federal or state law.

(4) Did not, without regard to any actual or constructive receipt by the QI, have actual or constructive receipt of the proceeds from the disposition of the relinquished property or any property of the QI before the QI entered bankruptcy or receivership. For purposes of this condition, relief of a liability under the exchange agreement before the QI default, either through the assumption or satisfaction of the liability in connection with the transfer of the relinquished property or through the transfer of the relinquished property subject to the liability, is disregarded.

Relief provisions. Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, provides that a taxpayer meeting the above conditions recognizes gain on the disposition of the relinquished property only as required under the safe harbor gross profit ratio method, and only as he receives payments attributable to that property.

Under the safe harbor gross profit ratio method, the portion of any payment attributable to the relinquished property that is recognized as gain is found by multiplying the payment by a fraction, having the taxpayer’s gross profit as the numerator, and having the taxpayer’s contract price as the denominator. For this purpose:

  • A payment attributable to the relinquished property means a payment of proceeds, damages, or other amounts attributable to the disposition of the relinquished property (other than selling expenses), whether paid by the QI, the bankruptcy or receivership estate of the QI, the QI’s insurer or bonding company, or any other person. Unless it exceeds adjusted basis, satisfied indebtedness is not a payment attributable to the relinquished property.
  • Gross profit means the selling price of the relinquished property, minus the taxpayer’s adjusted basis in it (increased by any selling expenses not paid by the QI using proceeds from the sale of the relinquished property).
  • The selling price of the relinquished property is generally the amount realized on its sale, without reduction for selling expenses. But if a court order, confirmed bankruptcy plan, or written notice from the trustee or receiver specifies, by the end of the first tax year in which the taxpayer receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property, an amount to be received by the taxpayer in full satisfaction of his claim, the selling price of the relinquished property is the sum of the payments attributable to the relinquished property (including satisfied indebtedness in excess of basis) received or to be received and the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of the adjusted basis of the relinquished property.
  • The contract price is the selling price of the relinquished property minus the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of the property’s adjusted basis. Satisfied indebtedness means any mortgage or encumbrance on the relinquished property that was assumed or taken subject to by the buyer or satisfied in connection with the transfer of the relinquished property.

Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, has detailed rules covering situations involving satisfied indebtedness exceeding adjusted basis, recapture income, and imputed interest.

A Code Sec. 165 loss deduction may be claimed for the amount, if any, by which the adjusted basis of the relinquished property exceeds the sum of (1) the payments attributable to that property (including satisfied indebtedness in excess of basis), plus (2) the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of basis. Those claiming a loss deduction may also claim a Code Sec. 165 loss deduction for the amount of any gain recognized in accordance with Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, in a prior tax year.

Illustration: Mr. Able, a calendar year taxpayer owned investment property (Property 1) with a fair market value of $1.5 million and an adjusted basis of $500,000.  He entered into an agreement with QI to facilitate a deferred like-kind exchange. On May 6, Year 1, Able transferred Property 1 to QI and QI transferred the property to a third party in exchange for $1.5 million. Able intended that the QI use the money held by it to acquire Able’s replacement property. On June 1, Year 1, Able identified Property 2 as replacement property. On June 15, Year 1, QI notified Able that it filed for bankruptcy protection and could not acquire replacement property. As a result, Able failed to acquire Property 2 or any other replacement property within the exchange period. As of December Year 1, QI’s bankruptcy proceedings are on-going and Able has received none of the $1.5 million proceeds from QI or any other source.

On July 1, Year 2, QI exits from bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court approves the trustee’s final report, which shows that Able will be paid $1.3 million in full satisfaction of QI’s obligation under the exchange agreement. Able receives the $1.3 million on August 4, Year 2 and does not receive any other payment attributable to the relinquished property.

Under Rev Proc 2010-14, Able is not required to recognize gain in Year 1 because he did not receive any payments attributable to the relinquished property in that year. He recognizes gain in Year 2, as follows:

… His selling price is $1.3 million, i.e., the payments attributable to the relinquished property (the amount specified by the trustee before the end of the first tax year in which he receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property).

… His contract price also is $1.3 million because there is no satisfied or assumed indebtedness.

… His gross profit is $800,000 (the selling price of $1.3 million less his $500,000 adjusted basis).

… His gross profit ratio is 80/130 (gross profit over the contract price).

… Able’s recognized gain in Year 2 is $800,000 (the $1.3 million payment attributable to the relinquished property multiplied by the gross profit ratio (80/130)).

Even though the payment attributable to the relinquished property ($1.3 million) is less than the $1.5 million that the QI received, Able is not entitled to a Code Sec. 165 loss deduction because the payment attributable to the relinquished property exceeds his adjusted basis in the relinquished property ($500,000). (Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4.10, Ex. 1)

Rev Proc 2010-14 carries four other detailed examples illustrating nuances of the new safe-harbor relief.

Effective date of relief. Rev Proc 2020-14 is effective for taxpayers whose like-kind exchanges fail due to a QI default occurring on or after January 1, 2009.  A taxpayer who is within the scope of Rev Proc 2020-14 may, subject to the Code Sec. 6511 limitations on credit or refund, file an original or amended return to report a deferred like-kind exchange that failed due to a QI default in a tax year ending before January 1, 2009, in accordance with Rev Proc 2010-14.

What do I do if my TIC is in trouble?

Saturday, February 20th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Alexandra L. Hart, CES® and I have been asked this question almost every other day for the past several months.  With the national commercial real estate and financial markets in turmoil, many investments that seemed solid only a year or two or three ago are now floundering.  Lenders are beginning foreclosure proceedings or are negotiating with the owners to take back a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  Buildings are being sold in so-called short sales.  And, lenders are selling off the promissory notes at deep discounts.  In other instances, the banks are not taking any immediate action, but the sponsors are offering to buy out investors for the amount of their investment.  Sometimes, individual investors are concerned and want to sell their interests, thus giving the other co-tenants an opportunity to buy a larger percentage for a small amount.tic-foreclosure

The question that we are continually asked is “What is my tax exposure?”  As a tax lawyer, I have been trained to answer “Well, it depends.”

In every TIC I know of, the property is encumbered by non-recourse debt.  Non-recourse debt is a loan made by a lender (could be a bank, an insurance company, a pension plan or some other type of lender) which debt is secured only by the property.  The key feature of non-recourse debt is that no one is personally liable for the debt and the lender can look only to the property for repayment.  As long as the rents are able to cover the expenses of the property and make the mortgage payments, then the lender typically feels comfortable.  However, if the cash flow only covers the expenses and the investors do not receive any distributions, then the investors are not comfortable.  Once the cash flow fails to cover the expenses, then the trouble really begins. 

Sometimes the sponsor or property manager will make a cash call.  If one or more of the owners is not willing or able to contribute enough cash, then the tenant-in-common agreement generally provides that the non-contributing owner either has to sell his or her interest, or the property has to be sold.  In any event, if there is insufficient cash to cover the expenses, the lender will eventually take action.

In most of these cases, the TIC investors do not contribute additional cash.  Thus, the lender starts the process of taking back or selling the property.  Because the debt is non-recourse, the lender cannot go after the TIC owners, and cannot force the TIC owners to pay any money.  So, the TIC owners generally lose the property, and their investment, but that is the extent of their losses.

These investors are convinced that they have sustained a loss for tax purposes.  In almost every instance, that is not the case.  For tax purposes, if a property that is encumbered by non-recourse debt is foreclosed upon or transferred back to the lender by a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the investor is treated for tax purposes as if he or she sold their interest in the property for their share of the non-recourse debt.  For tax purposes, this is known as the amount realized.  Taxable gain is calculated as the amount realized minus the adjusted tax basis of the property.

So, the next issue is to determine the investors’ adjusted tax basis in the property.  Most of the TIC owners acquired the TIC interest as a replacement property in a 1031 exchange.  If so, then their adjusted tax basis in the TIC interest is determined, in whole or in part, based on their adjusted tax basis in the property or properties that they sold in the 1031 exchange(s).  If the investor traded up in value on the 1031 exchange, then the investor may have added to his or her adjusted tax basis.  Any investor facing this dilemma should consult a qualified CPA or tax attorney who can make these complicated calculations.

Non-recourse debt that is forgiven does not result in cancellation of indebtedness income (”COD income”).  COD income can be generated only from recourse debt.  COD income is subject to a completely different set of tax rules.  So, investors should not become confused with how the COD income rules operate.

The character of the gain on the foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure of a TIC interest is likely to be capital.  The holding period of the TIC interest is determined, to some extent, based upon the holding period the investor had in his or her relinquished property or properties from the 1031 exchange.  However, if the investor traded up in value, he or she could have a split holding period.  In order to enjoy the lower long-term capital gains tax rates, the property has to have been held for more than twelve months.  In calculating the 12-month holding period, the investor may be able to tack on the holding period from his or her relinquished property.  Again, any investor in this situation needs to consult a qualified CPA or tax attorney.

Remember also that there is no bright-line test for how long a property has to be held to qualify as “held for investment” for purposes of section 1031.  There is no 2-year rule, 1-year rule or any other hard and fast rule.

In summary, the investor is treated as having sold the TIC interest in an amount equal to his or her share of the non-recourse debt.  The investor will recognize gain or loss on this deemed sale based on his or her adjusted tax basis.  In addition, the investor must determine his or her holding period.

The good news is that for investors facing a large tax bill, they may be able to defer the tax by effectuating another 1031 exchange.  Click here for more information about “coffin or “no equity” exchanges.

For more information about these issues, or to ask questions about a specific scenario, please contact Alexandra L. Hart, CES® by e-mail at AHart@AllStates1031.com or by phone toll-free at 877-395-1031 ext. 217.

How To Purchase 1031 Replacement Property at an Auction

Monday, February 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Alexandra L. Hart, CES® at All States 1031 Exchange Facilitator, LLC has been asked several times recently about how to buy replacement property at an auction.  While there is certainly nothing in section 1031 that specifically prohibits or disqualifies such replacement property, the real problem lies in the process and logistics of the auction process.  Most of the auctions are being held in connection with a mortgage foreclosure.

AuctionAt most auctions, the bidders must show a certified check in a certain minimum amount, such check being evidence of the ability to make a deposit payment.  Other than proof of ability to pay, and proof of identification, very little is required.  Standard purchase and sale agreement are not typically used.  The issues affecting the 1031 exchange include meeting the identification rules, assignment to the qualified intermediary of the right to buy the replacement property, and potential constructive receipt and boot issues.

In many auctions outside the 1031 arena, the bidders will bring a certified check payable to themselves.  If they are the successful bidder, they will endorse the check to the seller or the auctioneer.  In the 1031 world, if the QI issues a certified check payable to the exchanger, and then the exchanger endorses the check to the auctioneer, the IRS will likely assert that such amount was received by the exchanger and taxable as boot.  Furthermore, the payment could possibly disqualify the entire exchange as a distribution in violation of the specific restrictions (known as the g(6) limitations (see Treasury Regulation Section 1.1031(k)-1(g)(6)) on payments from the exchange account.  In other words, issuing a check payable to the exchanger is not a good idea.

One alternative is, prior to the auction, ask the auctioneer for the name of a title company they trust and have the QI place the exchange funds with them subject to the acceptance of the bid.  The exchanger can take blank assignment of contract documents with them to the auction to be executed in the event that they are the successful bidder.

Another alternative is to have a certified check issued by the QI to the auctioneer to be used in the event of a successful bid.  Otherwise, the check is returned to the QI.

Or, if the exchanger is trading up in value, the exchanger can use his or her own funds.

Other solutions could be found in particular situations.  If you are contemplating purchasing a replacement property through the auction process, be sure to contact Alexandra L. Hart, CES® or F. Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA, CES® to determine the best alternative.  You can reach Alexandra at AHart@AllStates1031.com or toll-free at 1-877-395-1031 extension 217.


Bankruptcy Court Holds No Trust Exists in Commingled Accounts

Monday, May 18th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The United States Bankruptcy Court ruled on April 15, 2009 that in the case of LandAmerica Exchange Services the accounts of the exchangers will be treated as assets of the bankruptcy estate.  LES apparently used a master account-subaccount technique, rather than completely independent, segregated accounts, such as used by All States 1031.  Although this ruling was a preliminary ruling, the Court touched upon a major issue that faces exchangers when selecting a Qualified Intermediary.

I taught a seminar a few years ago where one of the attendees told me he had exchanged about $2 billion of properties over the course of the previous two years.  He used LandAmerica for his qualified intermediary.  I explained to him about commingled accounts and why he should use All State 1031.  He said he would continue to use LandAmerica for his exchanges because that handled his title work and he trusted them.  I sensed the “bigger is better” attitude.  I forget his name, so I’m not sure if he is on the list of LandAmerica’s creditors.

During my tenure as President of the Federation of Exchange Accommodators, I constantly pressed for rules and regulations requiring the use of segregated accounts and a complete ban on commingled accounts.  I was slammed by the representatives of the big qualified intermediaries for failing to understand their business model and was told that it was not possible to use segregated accounts in big QIs.  I wanted the FEA’s lobbyists to urge the IRS to adopt these positions, as well as to require all exchange funds to be held in completely liquid accounts.  Again, I was put in my place by the big QIs.

Those chickens are coming home to roost.  Not only did LandAmerica Exchange commingle clients’ funds, but they “invested” the exchange funds in illiquid investments, for the sole purpose of creating greater profits for LES, and doing so by putting their clients’ exchange funds at risk.

LandAmerica was not the only QI commingling clients’ funds and making illiquid investments.  Most of the big QIs do so today.  Most of the clients have no idea how much of a risk is being taken with their money.  I’ve spoken with several of the exchangers who lost their life savings to LandAmerica.  I hope to never have these conversations again, but I have a feeling that if QIs continue to commingle funds and make illiquid risky investments, more exchangers will lose their money.

Piling On: Foreclosure Sales Can Trigger Unexpected Tax

Thursday, November 15th, 2007 by Moore McLaughlin

Foreclosure rates have increased dramatically recently, and the trend is expected to continue through the last quarter of 2007. Many foreclosed owners suffer a second indignity when they discover that they owe a substantial capital gains tax resulting from the foreclosure. The final straw comes when they learn that the gain could have been deferred through a 1031 exchange despite the fact that there was zero equity from the foreclosed property.

When appreciated real estate is to be sold, many taxpayers are aware that they can defer income tax on the gain by entering into a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the internal Revenue Code. When real estate is to be foreclosed on, however, few taxpayers are aware that they too may need a 1031 exchange since they may have “phantom income” if the debt encumbering the foreclosed property exceeds the fair market value of the property.

For income tax purposes, a foreclosure (and a deed in lieu of foreclosure) is treated as a sale despite the involuntary nature of the proceeding. Gain from the “sale” is equal to the amount realized over the adjusted basis of the property.

With nonrecourse debt, the amount realized is equal to the outstanding amount of the nonrecourse debt, regardless of the current fair market value (”FMV”) of the asset (i.e. the “phantom gain”). When recourse debt is discharged through a foreclosure, the transaction is treated as (i) a sale of the real estate for its FMV (with gain equal to the difference between the FMV and adjusted basis) and (ii) cancellation of debt (”COD”) income, taxed at ordinary rates, for the amount of the debt relieved that exceeds the FMV. The tax code does provide some exceptions to recognition of COD income for insolvent and bankrupt taxpayers, in exchange for reduction of certain tax attributes.

IRC § 1031 provides that no gain or loss will be recognized on the exchange of properly held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if the property is exchanged for property of a like kind. The regulations which define the term “like kind real property” generally consider US real property to be of like kind to all other US real property. There is no requirement in the Code or the Regulations that a taxpayer must have equity in the property being transferred for the exchange to be valid.

A taxpayer engaging in an otherwise valid like kind exchange will recognize gain if “boot” is received. Boot includes cash and the fair market value of any property other than qualifying like kind property. Boot also includes any relief from debt on the property-being sold, unless the taxpayer acquires a property with an equal amount of debt.

If a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure is inevitable, then the real estate owner can opt to enter into a deferred exchange transferring the distressed property to a qualified intermediary (”QI”). The QI disposes of the property by allowing the lender to complete the foreclosure. The QI would receive no proceeds from the sale, and would therefore not be required to spend any funds on the replacement property. The replacement property would, however, need to have a FMV equal or greater than the foreclosed property, and debt equal to or greater than the debt on the foreclosed property in order to avoid the receipt of boot.

Since it is doubtful that the real estate owner will be able to obtain 100% financing for the replacement property, it will be necessary for the owner to invest additional capital into the replacement property. The taxpayer and the QI would effectuate the purchase like a traditional exchange, with the exception being that the taxpayer would bring any required equity to the closing. The cost of expending additional capital, however, should be weighed against the tax resulting from the phantom income that would otherwise be due. In most cases, it makes sense to do the exchange. A taxpayer thinking about entering into this type of exchange should consult with a tax professional.

Security Issues…

Monday, June 18th, 2007 by Moore McLaughlin

I am sure many of you have recently read articles telling of horror stories of Qualified Intermediaries running into the sunset with their clients money. It’s sad to say but it has happened. The Exchangors doing business with these companies either were misinformed about the security features offered by the companies or they did not ask any questions about what was happening with their funds.

Make sure your funds are in an INDIVIDUAL, DUAL SIGNATORY ACCOUNT and make sure that you are receiving monthly statements directly from the bank or that you can call and get the current balance on your account from the bank.

Ask if they are bonded and insured.

Ask if they are members of the Federation of Exchange Accommodators and if they have a Certified Exchange Specialist on staff.

Remember not to focus on the price of the exchange - You get what you pay for. If you want superior knowledge, protection and service, it’s going to cost you a reasonable fee but in the long run you are going to be thankful for the security in knowing your exchange was completed correctly and you have no worries.

The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten

You have the right to know these things.

Click here to see all the security features that All States 1031 has to offer.