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

Posts Tagged ‘IRS’

New law extending homebuyer credit closing date and IRS guidance on it

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

first-time-homebuyerOn July 2, 2010, President Obama signed into law H.R. 5623, the “Homebuyer Assistance Improvement Act of 2010″ (the Act), which provides first-time homebuyer credit relief to taxpayers who could not meet a key June 30, 2010 closing date. The Senate passed the Act on June 30, 2010, by unanimous consent, and the House of Representatives passed it on June 29 by a vote of 409-5. On the same day that it was signed into law, the IRS issued a reminder that special filing and documentation requirements apply in claiming the homebuyer credit, including the information that must be provided by those taxpayers eligible to take advantage of the new law relief.

The cost of the closing reprieve is fully offset by expanding the bad check penalty under Code Sec. 6657 to cover electronic payments, and providing for disclosure of prisoner return information under Code Sec. 6103(k)(10) to state prisons.

Relief for First-Time Homebuyers Unable to Meet Closing Deadline

The Code Sec. 36 first-time homebuyer credit generally is equal to the lesser of $8,000 ($4,000 for a married individual filing separately) or 10% of the principal residence’s purchase price. However, for purchases after November 6, 2009, a taxpayer (i.e., a “long-time resident”) may claim the homebuyer credit if he (and, if married, his spouse) maintained the same principal residence for any 5-consecutive year period during the 8-years ending on the date that the taxpayer buys the subsequent principal residence. The maximum allowable homebuyer credit for such taxpayers, who are treated as first time homebuyers for purposes of the first-time homebuyer credit, is $6,500 ($3,250 for a married individual filing separately), or 10% of the purchase price of the subsequent principal residence, whichever is less.

For purchases after Nov. 6, 2009:

… the first-time homebuyer credit phaseout range is between $125,000 and $145,000, and for those filing a joint return, it’s between $225,000 and $245,000.

… the first-time homebuyer credit cannot be claimed for a home if its purchase price exceeds $800,000; and

… a number of anti-abuse provisions apply. For example, dependents cannot claim the first-time homebuyer credit; a purchaser must be at least 18 years of age on the date of purchase; and the definition of a qualifying purchase for first-time homebuyer credit purposes is amended to exclude property acquired from a person related to the person acquiring the property or the spouse of the person acquiring the property, if married.

The first-time homebuyer credit applied to a principal residence bought before May 1, 2010 and, under pre-Act law, to a principal residence bought before July 1, 2010, by a person who entered into a written binding contract before May 1, 2010, if the purchase closed before July 1, 2010. (Certain service members on qualified official extended duty service outside of the U.S. get an extra year to buy a qualifying home and get the credit.)

New law. The Act provides that if a written binding contract to purchase a principal residence was entered into before May 1, 2010, to close on the purchase of a principal residence before July 1, 2010, the credit may be claimed if the purchase is closed before October 1, 2010. (Code Sec. 36(h)(2), as amended by Act Sec. 2(a)).  Thus, this extension allows homebuyers who signed a contract no later than the April 30th deadline, intending to close before July 1, 2010, to complete their closing by the end of September and still qualify for the credit. Conforming amendments are made for purposes of the longer periods for those service members on qualified official extended duty service outside of the U.S. (Code Sec. 36(h)(3)(B)).

Required documentation. In IR 2010-80, the IRS reminds taxpayers that special filing and documentation requirements apply to anyone claiming the homebuyer credit. To avoid refund delays, those who entered into a purchase contract on or before April 30, but closed after that date, should attach to their return a copy of the pages from the signed contract showing all parties’ names and signatures if required by local law, the property address, the purchase price, and the date of the contract.

Besides filling out Form 5405, First-Time Homebuyer Credit and Repayment of the Credit, all eligible homebuyers must also include with their return one of the following documents:

… A copy of the settlement statement showing all parties’ names and signatures, property address, sales price, and date of purchase. Normally, this is the properly executed Form HUD-1, Settlement Statement. While the Form 5405 instructions indicate that a properly executed settlement statement should show the signatures of all parties, IRS recognizes that the elements of the settlement document may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may not reflect the signatures of the buyer and seller. The settlement statement that must be attached to the return is considered to be properly executed if it is complete and valid according to local law. In locations where signatures are not required, the IRS encourages the buyer to sign the settlement statement prior to attaching it to the tax return even in cases where the settlement form does not include a signature line.

… For mobile home purchasers who are unable to get a settlement statement, a copy of the executed retail sales contract showing all parties’ names and signatures, property address, purchase price and date of purchase.

… For a newly constructed home where a settlement statement is not available, a copy of the certificate of occupancy showing the owner’s name, property address and date of the certificate.

… A taxpayer who entered into a binding contract before May 1, 2010 (and who closes by July 1, 2010) must also attach pages from the signed contract showing all parties names and signatures, the property address, the purchase price, and the date of the contract.

… A taxpayer claiming the credit as a long-term resident of the same main home must attach copies of one of the following: Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement (or substitute statement), property tax records, or homeowner’s insurance records. These records should be for 5 consecutive years of the 8-year period ending on the purchase date of the new main home.

Options for claiming the credit. IR 2010-80 also reminds taxpayers that there are three options for claiming the credit on a qualifying 2010 purchase:

… If a 2009 return has not yet been filed, a taxpayer can claim the credit on Form 1040 for the 2009 tax year. Though such a return cannot be filed electronically, taxpayers can still use IRS Free File to prepare their return. The returns must be printed out and sent to IRS, along with all required documentation. (Taxpayers can use direct deposit for their refunds.)

… If a 2009 return has already been filed, a taxpayer can claim the credit on an amended return using Form 1040X.

… Whether or not a 2009 return has been filed, a taxpayer can wait until next year and claim the credit on a 2010 Form 1040.

The three-month extension of the closing date is intended to provide tax relief for those who could not close on time because of backlogs at lenders and federal programs involved in homebuyer loans. In the words of the Act’s supporters, the three-month extension “will give time for all the new mortgages to be processed and not punish those homeowners who have been delayed through no fault of their own.”

Bad Check Penalty Extended to Electronic Payments

Under Code Sec. 6657, subject to a good faith and reasonable cause exception, if a check or money order is used to pay any amount due under the Code and the amount is not duly paid on presentation, the person tendering the check or money order is subject to a penalty equal to 2% of the amount of the check or money order. If the amount of the check is less than $1,250, the penalty is $25 or the amount of the check, whichever is the less.

New law. For instruments tendered after July 2, 2010, the Act expands the bad check penalty under Code Sec. 6657 to cover electronic payments. (Code Sec. 6657, as amended by Act Sec. 3)

Disclosure of Prisoner Return Information to State Prisons

Under Code Sec. 6103(k)(10), to the extent necessary for effective Federal tax administration, before 2012, the IRS may disclose to the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons return information of an individual incarcerated in a Federal prison that IRS has determined may have filed or facilitated the filing of a false return

New law. For disclosures made after July 2, 2010, the Act also authorizes the disclosure of return information of an individual incarcerated in a State prison to the head of any State agency charged with the responsibility for the administration of prisons. (Code Sec. 6103(k)(10), as amended by Act Sec. 4).

For more information on this new law, contact All States 1031 Exchange owner and tax attorney/CPA Moore McLaughlin at fmm@AllStates1031.com or by phone toll-free at 877-395-1031.

No depreciation deductions or like-exchange treatment for equipment held for rent or sale

Thursday, July 1st, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Rental EquipmentIn Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) 201025049 dealing with equipment for rent or sale, the IRS has concluded that a taxpayer could not demonstrate that the equipment was devoted to use in its trade or business and that it looked to such use of the equipment to recover the cost of the equipment. Instead, the taxpayer held the equipment primarily for sale and, as a result, it could not claim depreciation deductions for the equipment and could not treat exchanges of the equipment as like-kind swaps under Code Sec. 1031.

Background. Under Code Sec. 167(a), taxpayers may claim a depreciation deduction for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income. However, under Reg. §1.167(a)-2, depreciation deductions can not be claimed for inventories or stock in trade.

Under Code Sec. 1031(a)(1), gain or loss is not 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 like kind which is held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Nonrecognition treatment is not allowed under Code Sec. 1031(a)(2)(A) for an exchange of property that is stock in trade or other property held primarily for sale.

Facts. Corp X distributes, sells, rents, services, and finances an unspecified type of equipment. It orders the equipment directly from the manufacturer and identifies certain equipment as rental property before receiving it from the manufacturer. When it receives the equipment, Corp X capitalizes the cost of the equipment that has been designated as rental property and claims depreciation deductions on this equipment from the time it is available for rent. Apparently, Corp X capitalizes the cost of equipment other than designated rental property as “inventory” (as defined in Code Sec. 471) upon the receipt of the equipment from the manufacturer. Corp X’s rental equipment is available for rent by the hour, week, or month, and it reserves the right to withdraw the rented equipment during the rental period and substitute similar equipment. The rental agreements permit a renter to buy the rented equipment, but the information provided IRS does not indicate the amount of rent, if any, that would be applied against the purchase price in the event a renter buys the equipment. However, Corp X has indicated that the sales price would be the subject of further negotiation between it and the renter/purchaser.

Corp X structures its sales of property designated as rental equipment as like-kind exchanges under Code Sec. 1031. It negotiates sales with customers and assigns the sales contracts to a qualified intermediary (QI). Corp X then orders replacement property from a manufacturer and assigns its rights to acquire the equipment to the QI. The trustee under the exchange agreement collects the proceeds from the sale of the relinquished property and makes disbursements for purchase of the replacement property on Corp X’s behalf. The replacement property is assigned an order number and is entered into Corp X’s fixed asset depreciation system. Corp X sends a monthly statement to the QI and the manufacturer informing them of the replacement property and includes a statement to the effect that under Code Sec. 1031, Corp X has assigned its rights to acquire the equipment to QI.

An analysis of Corp X’s Year 1 fiscal year results shows that 91% of its income was generated from sales while 9% was generated from its rental operation. Also, a substantial amount of the equipment designated as rental equipment was sold by Corp X before the equipment generated any rental income.

Neither depreciation nor tax-free swap treatment is available. The CCA says that where an asset can function as both merchandise held for sale and as an asset used in a trade or business, the taxpayer’s primary purpose for holding that asset determines whether that asset is inventoriable. On the facts, the CCA concludes that Corp X’s equipment should be treated as inventory held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. While Corp X does rent or hold some equipment for rent, it did not show that the equipment is actually devoted to use in its business and that it looks to consumption through this use to recover the cost of the equipment. A significant fact leading to the CCA’s conclusion is that a substantial amount of the equipment designated as rental equipment was sold by Corp X relatively soon after acquisition and before the equipment generated any rental income. Based on the available facts, the best that could be said is that for a relatively short period, Corp X rents or holds for rent some of its equipment pending the sale of that equipment.

As a result, the CCA concludes that Corp X cannot depreciate its equipment under Code Sec. 167. What’s more, because it holds the equipment primarily for sale, Corp X’s exchanges are not eligible for tax-free swap treatment because of Code Sec. 1031(a)(2)(A).

For more informaiton regarding this ruling or other 1031 exchanges issues, contact Alexandra L. Hart at AHart@AllStates1031.com or by phone toll-free at 877-395-1031.

IRS rules swap of emissions credits is tax-deferred Sec. 1031 exchange

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Private letter ruling 201024036 issued recently by the IRS concludes that the swap of two different types of emissions credits will be a tax-deferred exchange under Code Sec. 1031.

Background. In general, under Code Sec. 1031, 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, if statutory identification and receipt time limits are met. “Like kind” refers to the nature or character of the property and not to its grade or quality, and one kind or class of property can’t be exchanged for property of a different kind or class. (Reg. § 1.1031(a)-1(b))

Intangible personal property is of like kind to other intangible personal property only if (1) the nature or character of the rights involved are of like kind (e.g., a patent is of like kind to a patent and a copyright is of like kind to a copyright) and (2) the nature or character of the underlying property to which the intangible personal property relates is of like kind. For example, an exchange of a copyright on a novel for a copyright on a different novel is a like-kind exchange, but an exchange of a copyright on a novel for a copyright on a song is not. (Reg. § 1.1031(a)-2(c)) Under Rev Proc 92-91, 1992-2 CB 503, Q&A 5, emission allowances are like-kind property for Code Sec. 1031 purposes.

Ground Level Ozone (Smog)

Ground Level Ozone (Smog)

Facts. The concentration of ground level ozone (i.e., smog) in Region often exceeds permissible air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ground-level ozone is principally created by two types of pollutants: nitrogen oxide (”NOx”) and volatile organic compounds (”VOCs”). NOx is produced during combustion of natural gas. VOCs are organic chemical compounds that evaporate under specific conditions. A program set up by a Region government agency we’ll call Authority develops and implement air pollution control measures in Region. To improve Region’s air quality and bring the area into compliance with state and federal law, Authority has established a program to review and control emissions in Region. Under this program, businesses that take measures to reduce their emissions of pollutants, for example by installing emission reduction equipment, may apply for and receive emission reduction credits. These credits are used by the holder to “offset” emissions that would otherwise exceed permitted levels. Each credit is a grant to the holder of the right to emit a specified amount of the pollutant per year for an indefinite period of time. Credits may be transferred temporarily or permanently. Credits for reducing ozone are designated by Authority as either NOx or VOCs credits.

Apart from the underlying pollutant, the terms and conditions of the two types of credits are identical. NOx credits may be used to offset VOCs emissions and VOCs credits may be used to offset NOx emissions, as long as the holder of the credits demonstrates that using the credits in this way will not cause or contribute to a violation of state or federal air quality standards.

Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent and a member of Parent’s consolidated group. Sub holds NOx credits for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Parent anticipates the future need for VOCs credits in order to meet emission standards related to an undisclosed project. Authority has historically granted permission to use NOx credits to offset VOCs emissions, but this interpollutant use of credits is not economically optimal for Parent because the NOx credits are more valuable due to their relative scarcity. From a business perspective Parent would prefer to exchange NOx credits for VOCs credits held by unrelated third parties. This would generally allow Parent to emit a greater amount of VOCs than if it obtains authorization to use its NOx credits to offset its VOCs emissions.

Sub’s NOx credits exceed its needs. Parent proposes to cause Sub to distribute its NOx credits to Parent. Thereafter, Parent will swap the NOx credits it acquires from Sub for VOCs credits held by unrelated third parties. Parent would then use the VOCs credits to offset emissions from its trade or business.

Favorable ruling. Parent asked for a ruling that the exchange of emission credits was tax-deferred under Code Sec. 1031 and IRS responded positively. It ruled that the NOx and VOCs credits are like-kind property for Code Sec. 1031 purposes. It also ruled that Parent is considered to have, prior to the exchange, held the NOx credits for productive use in its trade or business. IRS concluded that gain or loss won’t be recognized on Parent’s exchange of NOx credits for VOCs credits immediately following the distribution of the NOx credits from Sub, provided all other Code Sec. 1031 requirements are met.

For more information regarding this PLR or any other 1031 questions, contact Alexandra L. Hart by e-mail at AHart@AllStates1031.com or by phone toll-free at 877-395-1031.

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.

Supreme Court lets stand decision that using qualified intermediary cannot avoid §1031 related party rule

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
Supreme Court of the United States of America

Supreme Court of the United States of America

The Supreme Court has declined to review a Ninth Circuit holding that a taxpayer could not avoid the Code §1031 like-kind-exchange related-party rule by using a qualified intermediary (QI). Teruya Brothers, Ltd. & Subsidiaries , (CA 9 2/11/2009) 104 AFTR 2d ¶ 2009-5345 , cert denied 2/22/2010.

Background. If statutory identification and replacement period requirements are met, gain or loss is not recognized currently on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment for property of like kind that will be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. (Code §1031) QIs may be used to structure like-kind exchanges. However, under Code §1031(f), gain or loss on an exchange between related persons (under Code §267(b) or Code §707(b)(1)) must generally be recognized if either the property transferred or the property received is disposed of within two years after the exchange. Nonrecognition treatment under the like-kind exchange rules does not apply to any exchange that is part of a transaction or series of transactions structured to avoid the purposes of the related party exchange rule. (Code §1031(f)(4)) However, under Code §1031(f)(2)(C), a disposition will not trigger the related party bar if it is established to IRS’s satisfaction that neither the original transaction nor the later disposition had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of federal tax.

Facts. Teruya Brothers Ltd. (Teruya) owned 62.5% of the common shares of Times Super Market Ltd (Times), so the two entities were related.  In 1995, in one series of planned transactions, Teruya transferred Real Property 1 to TGE, a QI, which then sold it to an unrelated third party. TGE used the sale proceeds, as well as additional funds from Teruya, to buy like-kind Replacement Property 2 for Teruya from Times, and then transferred Replacement Property 2 to Teruya. In another series of planned transactions, Teruya transferred Real Property 3 to TGE, which sold it to an unrelated party. TGE used the sale proceeds from Real Property 3, plus some cash from Teruya, to buy like kind Replacement Properties 4 and 5 from Times.

Teruya realized a $1.3 million gain on Property 1 and a $10.7 million gain on Property 3. Times realized and recognized a $1.3 million gain on Property 2 and a $2.2 million gain on Property 5, but these gains were offset by a large net operating loss. Times realized a $6.4 million loss on Property 4, but did not recognize it because of the Code §267 related-party restriction on loss recognition.

Teruya treated its transactions as tax-deferred like-kind exchanges under Code §1031, but IRS said the transactions ran afoul of the Code §1031(f)(4) related-party rule and hit Teruya with a $4 million deficiency.

Tax Court. In 2005, the Tax Court held that the transactions were economically equivalent to direct exchanges of properties between Teruya and Times (with boot from Teruya to Times), followed by the sales of the properties by Times to unrelated third parties. The interposition of a QI couldn’t obscure the end result.

Observation: In 2009, the Tax Court applied its Teruya reasoning and decision to rule against another taxpayer on the QI- Code §1031(f) issue (see Ocmulgee Fields, Inc., (2009) 132 TC No. 6).

Ninth Circuit. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court did not err in determining that the transactions were structured to avoid the purposes of Code §1031(f)(4). It rejected Teruya’s contention that the economic consequences of the transactions to Times were irrelevant, and that Teruya’s continued investment in real property was dispositive. Code §1031(f)(1)(C)(i) disallows nonrecognition treatment if a related party disposes of exchanged property within two years, regardless of whether the taxpayer does as well. Thus, examining the taxpayer and related party’s economic position in the aggregate is often the only way to tell if Code §1031(f) applies.

The legislative history indicating Congress’s desire to bar like-kind exchange treatment where related parties have, in effect, cashed out of the investment, confirmed that a taxpayer and a related party should be treated as an economic unit to see if Code §1031(f) applies. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that the changing economic positions of Teruya and Times readily showed that the related parties used the exchanges to cash out of an investment in low-basis real property. Before the exchanges, Teruya owned Property 1 and Property 3, and Times owned Properties 2, 4, and 5. After the exchanges, Properties 1 and 3 had been sold, Teruya owned Properties 2, 4, and 5, and Times had the cash from the sale of Properties 1 and 3 (along with boot from Teruya). All in all, Teruya and Times decreased their investment in real property by approximately $13.4 million, and increased their cash position by the same amount. By allowing Teruya and Times to cash out of a significant investment in real property under the guise of a nontaxable like-kind exchange, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the transactions were undoubtedly structured to contravene Congress’s desire that nonrecognition treatment only apply to transactions where a taxpayer can be viewed as merely continuing his investment.

The Ninth Circuit said Teruya could have exchanged its properties directly with Times, followed by Times’s selling Property 1 and Property 3 to the third-party purchasers, but this would not have had a tax-free result, since direct exchanges between related parties are ineligible for nonrecognition treatment when the exchanged property is sold within two years. Instead, Teruya employed TGE; the latter’s involvement as a QI served no purpose besides rendering simple, but tax disadvantageous, transactions more complex in order to avoid Code §1031(f)’s restrictions.

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the Tax Court’s conclusion that Code Sec. 1031(f)(4) applied because improper avoidance of federal income tax was one of the principal purposes of the transactions.

Late in 2009, Teruya appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. However, on February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

For more information on 1031 exchanges, or to ask specific questions regarding the related party rule of §1031, please contact Alexandra L. Hart, CES® at All States 1031 Exchange Facilitator, LLC by e-mail at AHart@AllStates1031.com or Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA, CES® by e-mail at FMM@AllStates1031.com or either of them by phone toll-free at 877-395-1031 extension 217.

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.


1031 Exchanges Become More Valuable in Rhode Island

Sunday, December 13th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

1031 exchanges gained significant value recently in Rhode Island thanks to the state legislature and the Governor.  The leaders of Rhode Island determined that raising the Rhode Island tax rate on capital gains from 1.67% to 9.9% was good for the economic viability of the state.  These leaders did not really explain the basis for such a determination, they just passed the bill.  This enormous rate increase will take effect for sales after December 31, 2009.

So, in order to avoid this additional tax, a 1031 exchange should be considered.  See our website for the basics of 1031 exchanges and the types of properties that are eligible.  But, for the right types of properties and for the right investor, the 1031 exchange will allow the Rhode Island tax to be deferred.

For more information on the Rhode Island tax, contact All States 1031 Exchange Facilitator, LLC owner F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, Esq., CPA, CES at 877-395-1031 or by e-mail at fmm@AllStates1031.com.

Exchanging Real Estate Intangibles

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

When exchanging real estate, the exchanger must acquire property that is like-kind to the property that was sold.  Like-kind in connection with real estate is defined as “all other real estate.”  The types of property that qualify are very broad.  For example, raw land will be like-kind with improved real estate.  An office building is like-kind with an apartment building.  Real estate in Massachusetts or Rhode Island is like-kind with real estate in Florida, Texas or Arizona.conservation-easement

Further, a partial or fractional interest in real estate is like-kind to a full or fee simple interest in real estate.  So, an exchanger could sell a fee simple interest in real estate and purchase a tenant-in-common interest in real estate.

Recently, a series of rulings have been issued by the IRS which confirms that certain intangible interests in real estate are like-kind to fee simple interests in real estate.

Conservation Easements

In Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 9621012, the IRS ruled that the exchange of a “perpetual scenic conservation easement” (PSCE) for a fee simple interest in land that was either timberland, a ranch, or a farm qualifies for tax-free treatment under section 1031.  A PSCE means any limitation in a deed in the form of an easement, restriction, covenant, or condition, the purpose of which is to retain land predominantly in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, forested, or open-space condition.  Under a PSCE, the subject property remains as scenic open space in perpetuity, and its owner is not able to develop the property.  The ruling is based on a state’s civil code, which provides that a conservation easement is an interest in real property voluntarily created and freely transferable in whole or in part.  Assuming the PSCE is, by virtue of state law, an interest in real property, the exchange of the PSCE for the proposed replacement property qualifies as an exchange of like-kind property for purposes of Section 1031.

In PLR 9232030, the IRS ruled that an agricultural conservation easement on a farm is of like kind to a fee simple interest in real estate.

In PLR 200201007, the IRS ruled that a taxpayer’s exchange of a perpetual conservation easement (PCE) on a ranch for other ranch property that would be subject to a PCE upon receipt by the taxpayer qualifies for like-kind exchange treatment under Section 1031.

In PLR 200651018, the IRS ruled that a perpetual stewardship easement as described in the ruling is of like-kind to fee interest in other real property, and use of proceeds from relinquished perpetual stewardship to purchase one or more fee interests in real property to be held by taxpayer for productive use in trade or business or for investment will not disqualify transaction from tax deferred exchange treatment.

Development Rights

The IRS ruled in PLR 200901020 that residential density development rights to be transferred by taxpayer as relinquished property were for Section 1031 purposes of a like-kind to a fee interest in real estate, leasehold interest in real estate with 30 years or more remaining at time of the exchange, and land use rights for hotel units. The land use rights that were a part of the put option addressed in this PLR and the restrictive covenant (collectively referred to as Development Rights) constituted interests in real estate under state law. Taxpayer intended to exercise the put option and use the sales proceeds from the Development Rights (the relinquished property) to acquire like kind replacement property. Taxpayer’s replacement property included a fee interest in real estate, a leasehold interest in real estate with 30 years or more remaining, and land use rights for hotel units.  The IRS ruled that the Development Rights to be transferred by Taxpayer as relinquished property were of like kind, for purposes of Code Sec. 1031, to a fee interest in real estate, a leasehold interest in real estate with 30 years or more remaining at the time of the exchange and land use rights for hotel units (which Taxpayer would receive if the Development Rights it transferred were for more than a certain number of residential units). The new rights for hotel units were to be applied to property Taxpayer already owned. The Development Rights were in perpetuity and were directly related and requisite to Taxpayer’s interest, use and enjoyment of the underlying land. The Development Rights were also interests in real property under state law. In effect, Taxpayer exchanged one set of Development Rights (pertaining to residential density) for other development rights (pertaining to hotel development). Some of the Development Rights were also to be exchanged for another fee interest in land, and another long-term leasehold interest in additional real property.

IRS has also ruled recently that development rights were like kind to the fee interest in property that a taxpayer relinquished in the exchange. The swap involved a complex exchange set up through a qualified intermediary (QI). In the PLR, Taxpayer was a C corporation that owned Property 1 and Property 2 located in City, State Z. It intended to transfer its fee interest in Property 1 (”Relinquished Property”) to a QI under an exchange agreement. QI wwould sell the Relinquished Property to a third-party purchaser in an arm’s-length transaction. QI would use part of the cash proceeds from this sale to buy Development Rights (”Replacement Property”) from a third-party seller. QI would transfer Development Rights to Taxpayer, who would cause Development Rights to be recorded with respect to Property 2. They would permit Taxpayer (or its lessee) to develop Property 2 with greater floor space than would otherwise have been allowed if Property 2 did not have Development Rights. Sections of State Z Tax Statute (and the corresponding sections of State Z regulations), defined “real property” to include “every estate or right, legal or equitable, present or future, vested or contingent, in lands, tenements or hereditaments, including buildings, structures and other improvements thereon, which are located in whole or in part within [State Z].” Sections of State Z Tax Statute further defined an “interest in real property” to include “title in fee, a leasehold interest, a beneficial interest, an encumbrance, development rights, air space and air rights, or any other interest with the right to use or occupancy of real property or the right to receive rents, profits, or other income derived from real property.” Whether property constitutes real or personal property generally is determined under state or local law.  In this case, Taxpayer proposed to acquire Development Rights as its replacement property and to transfer such rights to Property 2, which Taxpayer already owns. The IRS has previously noted that for purposes of Code Sec. 1031(a), it is not material that the property acquired by the taxpayer as the replacement property is on property already owned by that taxpayer so long as it is acquired in an arm’s-length transaction. For purposes of determining if Taxpayer’s proposed transaction qualifies as a like-kind exchange, IRS said it is thus immaterial that Development Rights to be acquired by Taxpayer will be used merely to enhance the real property already owned by it. More important is whether Development Rights constitute interests in real property under the state and local laws of State Z.  Although it is unclear whether Development Rights were treated as interests in real property for all purposes of State Z law, it is clear that Sections of State Z Tax Statute and the regulations thereunder did treat Development Rights as an interest in real property. Moreover, the various sections of the local Ordinances provided that Development Rights are as-of-right and not discretionary, meaning that they exist permanently rather than at the discretion of a city agency or other decision-making authority. As such, these rights appear to be analogous to perpetual rights. In addition, a deed transfer is similar to the perfecting of Development Rights, which involves an actual transfer of rights from one property to another. Thus, while the Tax Statutes of State Z do not explicitly state that Development Rights are granted in perpetuity, IRS concluded that such rights do arise out of an interest in the underlying real estate. Moreover, City Ordinances did not set an expiration date for Development Rights, and thus they were effectively perpetual in nature. Thus, IRS concluded that Development Rights that Taxpayer intended to acquire as replacement property were like kind to the fee interest in Relinquished Property.

The point of this discussion is to alert all potential exchangers to the borad definition of real estate and what will qualify under Section 1031.  For more information or questions about specific scenarios, please contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA, CES, owner of All States 1031 Exchange Facilitator, LLC at fmm@AllStates1031.com or Alexandra L. Hart, CES at AHart@AllStates1031.com.

Dispelling 1031 Myths, part 4

Monday, September 28th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

Loch Ness MonsterAlexandra Hart and I are still amazed that we hear so many of the same myths and misconceptions every week about 1031 exchanges, what properties qualify and how exchanges work.  Unfortunately, many of the myths result in someone not exchanging when a 1031 would have saved a significant amount of taxes.  Here are two more myths that we hear as reasons not to do an exchange.

Myth No. 7

In order for a 1031 exchange to work, I have to find someone who has property I want and who wants my property.

Not true.  The IRS has allowed so-called delayed or deferred exchanges for many years.  For a number of years, no guidance existed on how to handle deferred exchanges.  In the late 1970’s, the Starker case held that a 1031 exchange did not have to be simultaneous.  Subsequently, the tax law was changed which allowed deferred exchanges, subject to certain limitations.

Now deferred exchanges are the norm.  We very rarely see direct swaps of property, although they are certainly allowed.  Most exchanges are effected by exchangers who sell their relinquished property to an unrelated third-party buyer and then purchase the replacement property from someone who is unrelated to either the exchanger or the buyer of the relinquished property.  In fact, in many cases neither the buyer of the relinquished property nor the seller of the replacement property are doing 1031 exchanges.  Although, in many cases they are.

The deferred exchanges must meet several simple rules.  The exchanger must acquire the replacement property within the earlier of 180 days from the sale of the relinquished property or the due date of the tax return (including extensions).  The exchanger must identify the potential replacement properties within 45 days from the sale of the relinquished property.  And, lastly, the exchanger should use a qualified intermediary (QI) or other safe harbor to avoid receipt of the sales proceeds from the sale of the relinquished property.  Following these rules, and a few others, will ensure a valid 1031 exchange.

Myth No. 8

If I fail to identify property within 45 days or if I fail to acquire sufficient replacement property during the exchange period, I will lose my money or be hit with severe penalties by the IRS.

Failure of an exchange results in no penalties and you will not lose your money.  An exchanger who fails to identify any property during the 45-day identification period will have his or her exchange proceeds returned on Day 46.  Likewise, an exchanger who fails to acquire any property during the exchange period will receive the exchanges funds on Day 181.  Please click here to read more about at what points during the exchange period the exchanger is allowed to get their money back.  The only economic loss is the fee charged by the intermediary, which is typcially minimal compared to the potential tax savings.

A failed 1031 exchange is treated merely as a sale of the relinquished property, subject to whatever taxes would have been imposed had a 1031 exchange not been attempted.  Even better, the exchange that begins in one tax year and fails in the subsequent tax year is treated as an installment sale with the possibility of significant tax deferral.  Click here for more information on the tax treatement of a failed exchange.

In any event, once sellers become aware of these realities, most realize that they have nothing to fear from a failed exchange and decide to enter into the exchange to preserve the right to defer taxes.

Stay tuned for more posts exposing the myths of 1031 exchanges that keep investors from saving taxes.

For more information on 1031 exchanges, contact Moore McLaughlin by e-mail at fmm@allstates1031.com or Alexandra L. Hart at ahart@allstates1031.com or by call toll-free at 877-395-1031.