Commercial Real Estate Blog by Madison

Category Archives:
§1031 Exchanges

Parking Arrangements in Construction Exchanges and for Other Purposes

By: Lee David Medinets, Esq., Chief Counsel, MCRES, Madison Exchange a/k/a Madison 1031, and affiliates

In the last few posts, we looked at how parking arrangements are handled in reverse exchanges. Construction exchanges are in some ways very similar to reverse exchanges. Both involve a parking arrangement. In a construction exchange, however, the purpose of the parking arrangement is different.

IRC § 1031 allows for the cost of construction on replacement property to be counted as part of the purchase price of that property, but only to the extent that the improvements have been made to the property before the taxpayer acquires it. Once the taxpayer owns the replacement property it is too late. Moreover, payment for bricks and mortar sitting at the construction site does not count for exchange purposes until those bricks and mortar have been attached to the ground. The cost of services performed for construction counts, but not the cost of services that have not yet been performed. In a construction exchange, the parking arrangement allows these improvements to be made while the property is in the hands of a friendly party. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

Parking Arrangements in Reverse Exchanges – Part 3

By Lee David Medinets, Esq., Chief Counsel, MCRES, Madison Exchange a/k/a Madison 1031, and affiliates

In my last post, we looked at how a safe harbor reverse exchange works under Rev. Proc. 2000-37. Either the relinquished property or the replacement property is “parked” with an “exchange accommodation titleholder” or “EAT”. We also discussed the restrictions on a safe harbor reverse exchange that must be included in a “qualified exchange accommodation agreement” (a “QEAA”) in order to have the benefit of the safe harbor. In this post we will examine the difference between parking a replacement property versus parking a relinquished property.

There are usually some significant advantages to parking the replacement property instead of the relinquished property. Here are five advantages. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

Parking Arrangements in Reverse Exchanges – Part 2

Lee David Medinets, Esq., Chief Counsel, MCRES, Madison Exchange a/k/a Madison 1031, and affiliates

In the last post, we began to examine the problem of what to do when a taxpayer needs to buy an IRC Section 1031 like-kind exchange replacement property before the relinquished property in that exchange can be sold. This is called a “reverse exchange” because it proceeds in the opposite direction from the common forward exchange where the relinquished property is sold first. The reverse exchange process creates a special problem in that the taxpayer cannot simultaneously own both the relinquished property and the replacement property. In a reverse exchange, either the relinquished property or the replacement property must be “parked” with some relatively friendly third-party until the relinquished property is sold.

We also examined why traditional non-safe harbor reverse exchanges are expensive, risky and rare. On the other hand, traditional non-safe harbor exchanges have the substantial advantage that there is no theoretical limit to how long a potential replacement property could be parked. In order to inject some certainty into the reverse exchange process and in order to encourage reasonable time limits on that process, the IRS has offered an alternative by creating a safe harbor in Revenue Procedure 2000-37. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

Parking Arrangements in Reverse Exchanges – Part 1

By Lee David Medinets, Esq., Chief Counsel, MCRES and Senior Counsel, Madison Exchange, LLC a/k/a Madison 1031 and their affiliates

IRC §1031 like-kind exchanges are popular, reliable, IRS-approved transactions that allow taxpayers to defer paying taxes on profits when property (usually real estate) that is held for productive use in trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property (e.g., real estate exchanged for real estate) that will also be held for productive use in trade or business or for investment.

In a typical IRC §1031 exchange, the taxpayer sells relinquished property through a qualified intermediary (a “QI”) and later acquires replacement property through the same QI. If the process is handled in accordance with Treasury Regulations, it is considered as if the taxpayer exchanged the relinquished property for the replacement property. This process is commonly referred to as a “forward” exchange because it proceeds in the normal direction – sell first, buy second. However, sometimes a taxpayer needs to buy the replacement property before the relinquished property can be sold. This is called a “reverse exchange” because it proceeds in the opposite direction from a forward exchange.

A reverse exchange poses a special problem. The taxpayer cannot simultaneously own both the relinquished property and the replacement property. That would make it impossible to exchange one property for the other. Therefore, in a reverse exchange, either the relinquished property or the replacement property must be “parked” with some relatively friendly third-party until the relinquished property is sold. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

Up or Down? Changing Capital Gains Taxes

By: Elliot Zaks, Principal, Madison Commercial Real Estate Services

The White House tax plan, as described in President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union Address on Tuesday, has revived the long debate over the use of taxes to close income gaps. In an effort to overhaul the tax code for a more progressive system, the President has proposed several significant changes.

The new proposal would raise the top tax rate on long term capital gains. Changing the rate from the current 23.8% to 28% would affect approximately the top 1% of earners. (This new rate includes the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent investment income surtax on high income taxpayers.)

The new plan also proposes to impose capital gains tax on many inherited assets. Taxing capital gains at death, rather than allowing them to pass on to heirs income-tax free, would also have a major effect on the well-to-do. Other elements in the new plan include expanding middle class tax breaks, permanent expansions of the earned-income credit for the working poor, and a tax on large financial institutions.

We are sure to hear heated discussions on this subject over the next few weeks. It is unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress will sign the President’s tax proposals into law. But it is worthwhile to consider both sides of the debate, and its potential effect on the real estate industry. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off

New Private Letter Ruling Suggests a Method for Handling Certain Construction Exchanges

By Lee David Medinets, Esq., CES®, Chief Counsel, Madison Exchange, LLC

A “Construction Exchange” is a special type of tax-deferred IRC § 1031 like-kind exchange that allows a taxpayer to defer recognizing income by sheltering proceeds from the sale of relinquished property into improvements made to replacement property, not just in the cost of buying the replacement property (as in an ordinary “forward exchange”). In order for a construction exchange to work, the taxpayer cannot own the property at the time the im-provements are made. In a typical safe-harbor construction exchange [Rev. Proc. 2000-37], the replacement property is purchased from a third-party seller on behalf of the tax-payer by an exchange accommodation titleholder (“EAT”). The EAT is essentially acting as the taxpayer’s agent under a contract that allows the taxpayer to use and improve the re-placement property during the taxpayer’s 180-day exchange period. By the end of the ex-change period, the EAT transfers legal ownership of the replacement property to the tax-payer, which completes the exchange.

One common problem is that a safe-harbor construction exchange will not work if the tax-payer owned the replacement property within 180 days of the start of the exchange. [Rev. Proc. 2004-51.] What if the replacement property is owned by a related party, such as a multi-member LLC that the taxpayer controls? There has been some concern that such an exchange might fail to qualify as a safe-harbor construction exchange because ownership of the replacement property by the related party would be viewed by the IRS as the equivalent of ownership by the taxpayer himself/herself. IRS Private Letter Ruling 201408019, issued February 21, 2014, addressed this precise issue. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

IRC §1031 Like-Kind Exchanges and the Mexican Land Trust

By Lee David Medinets, Esq., MCRES General Counsel

Non-Mexicans are not permitted to own land in certain “restricted zones” within Mexico (i.e., within 100 miles of that country’s international borders or within 50 miles of the ocean). Nevertheless, foreigners may own a beneficial interest in land within restricted zones through a fideicomiso or Mexican Land Trust (“MLT”). In order to acquire land through an MLT, the foreign national must first obtain permission from the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If permission is granted, then legal title to the land can be held by a Mexican bank as trustee of the MLT, and the foreign national can have all of the benefits and burdens of real estate ownership as a beneficiary of the MLT.

In the recent Rev. Rul. 2013-14 (released June 7, 2013), the IRS determined whether an MLT can be swapped in an IRC § 1031 like-kind exchange. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

More Counties Impacted by Hurricane Sandy now Qualify for Extensions on 1031 Exchanges per IRS

By Esther Rozsansky, Certified Exchange Specialist
Madison Exchange

A month after Hurricane Sandy, the IRS has reevaluated and added more counties to list of places that qualify for extensions on the 45-day identification period and 180-day exchange period for active IRC 1031 like kind exchanges. This tax relief is still granted on a county-by-county basis. Click here to read which additional counties are now included. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

IRS Issues Extensions on 1031 Exchanges for Hurricane Sandy Victims

By Esther Rozsansky, Certified Exchange Specialist
Madison Exchange

As expected, the IRS extended the 45-day identification period and 180-day exchange period on active IRC 1031 like kind exchanges for victims of Hurricane Sandy. This tax relief is granted on a county-by-county basis. It is possible, but unlikely, that the IRS may add additional counties to its current list. Click here to learn which area are covered and the criteria that must be met to qualify for the extension. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Residences

Written by Lee David Medinets, Esq.
General Counsel, MCRES and Senior Counsel for Madison 1031

IRC § 1031 provides an opportunity to defer taxes when like-kind properties are exchanged. In order to qualify, one essential requirement is that both the relinquished property and the replacement property must be “held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment.” Therefore, a common problem in like-kind exchanges is to determine whether a particular residential property is held for investment or for personal use. Two recent U.S. Tax Court cases give a little help in making that distinction. Continue reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments Off
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux