Commercial Real Estate Blog by Madison
Tag Archives: exchange accommodation titleholder

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

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
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux