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

Posts Tagged ‘commingle exchange security’

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.

Dispelling 1031 Myths, part 2

Thursday, August 20th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The following is a continuation from a previous post regarding some common myths surrounding 1031 exchanges.  Taxpayers who understand the rules of section 1031 and do not fall for the many myths will save more taxes and see better returns from their investments.  Here are two more of the tops myths that Alexandra and I hear daily.Bigfoot

Myth No. 3

 I heard that 1031 exchanges are only for the big investors.

 Actually, anyone who owns investment property should consider a §1031 exchange before selling.  The property size and value do not matter when considering a 1031 exchange. All that matters is the gain and the tax consequences. It’s fair to assume that about a quarter of the gain will go to the IRS in taxes if no exchange is completed. If the property has a low basis or has appreciated in value, the owner should seriously consider a 1031 exchange before selling. IRS code section 1031 is the only legal way to defer taxes on the sale of investment or business-use property. Currently, real estate sales are taxed at the 15% federal long-term capital gains tax rate, plus the state tax rate, plus 25% tax on any depreciation deductions taken. Furthermore, with tax rates rising steeply, it gives investors an even greater reason to do a 1031 exchange and defer that tax. The more taxes that are deferred, the more money the investor can retain to work for them in their next investment. Whether they are selling a small rental unit or an office building, they can simply pay the gain and throw away their hard earned money, or effectuate a §1031 exchange, preserving their capital and building their wealth. Any investor should consult a tax adviser who is familiar with §1031 exchanges to determine the most beneficial strategy.

 Myth No. 4

 I’ll just have my attorney hold the sales proceeds in escrow while I look for Replacement Property.

IRS regulations specifically exclude the investor’s agent, broker, attorney, accountant, most family members and other related parties or agents who have acted on the investor’s behalf within the previous two years from acting as the exchange facilitator or Qualified Intermediary (QI) for a tax-deferred exchange. To ensure compliance with the latest IRS regulations and updates, the investor should choose a well established full-time Qualified Intermediary, not someone who merely “dabbles” in exchanges. Generally, companies who are exclusively devoted to structuring and facilitating 1031 exchanges have streamlined the process and offer the most competitive fees. Typically, the fee for a QI can range from $750 - $7,500, depending on the QI and the complexity of the exchange. Furthermore, the QI should have instituted financial safeguards such as a fidelity bond and insurance to protect the sales proceeds during the exchange. Ideally, the QI will set up a separately segregated dual signatory exchange account for each exchange client, not a co-mingled or sub-account. Furthermore, sale proceeds should be deposited in a liquid money market account at a stable financial institution or back to ensure preservation of principal and liquidity of funds. Click here to learn about how All States 1031 secures clients’ funds. Finally, be sure to ask the QI certain due diligence questions to make sure that the owners and operators of the company have a comprehensive understanding of the tax code, preferably with tax attorneys, CPAs, and Certified Exchange Specialists® on staff.

Don’t fall for these common myths.  You will save money in the long-run and be a smarter investor.

Check back for more posts dispelling other myths about 1031 exchanges.  In the meantime, click here for more 1031 myths or contact me or Alexandra Hart at 877-395-1031 or by e-mail fmm@allstates1031.com or ahart@allstates1031.com.

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.