Qualified Exchange Accommodation Agreement | Commercial Real Estate Blog by Madison

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 →

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 →