Skip to content

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
    • Help
    • Submit feedback
  • Sign in / Register
S
spbrealtor
  • Project
    • Project
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Cycle Analytics
  • Issues 6
    • Issues 6
    • List
    • Board
    • Labels
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 0
    • Merge Requests 0
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Collapse sidebar
  • Activity
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Issue Boards
  • Nelson Bown
  • spbrealtor
  • Issues
  • #4

Closed
Open
Opened Jun 15, 2025 by Nelson Bown@nelsonbown969
  • Report abuse
  • New issue
Report abuse New issue

1031 Exchange Services


The term "sale and lease back" describes a circumstance in which a person, generally a corporation, owning company residential or commercial property, either genuine or personal, sells their residential or commercial property with the understanding that the buyer of the residential or commercial property will immediately turn around and lease the residential or commercial property back to the seller. The objective of this kind of deal is to make it possible for the seller to rid himself of a big non-liquid investment without depriving himself of the usage (during the regard to the lease) of needed or preferable buildings or devices, while making the net cash profits available for other financial investments without resorting to increased debt. A sale-leaseback deal has the extra benefit of increasing the taxpayers readily available tax deductions, because the rentals paid are typically set at 100 per cent of the value of the residential or commercial property plus interest over the regard to the payments, which leads to an allowable reduction for the worth of land along with structures over a duration which might be much shorter than the life of the residential or commercial property and in certain cases, a deduction of a common loss on the sale of the residential or commercial property.

What is a tax-deferred exchange?
lacity.gov
A tax-deferred exchange permits a Financier to offer his existing residential or commercial property (given up residential or commercial property) and purchase more successful and/or efficient residential or commercial property (like-kind replacement residential or commercial property) while delaying Federal, and most of the times state, capital gain and devaluation recapture income tax liabilities. This deal is most typically described as a 1031 exchange however is likewise called a "postponed exchange", "tax-deferred exchange", "starker exchange", and/or a "like-kind exchange". Technically speaking, it is a tax-deferred, like-kind exchange pursuant to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 1.1031 of the Department of the Treasury Regulations.

Utilizing a tax-deferred exchange, Investors may delay all of their Federal, and in many cases state, capital gain and devaluation regain earnings tax liability on the sale of investment residential or commercial property so long as specific requirements are fulfilled. Typically, the Investor must (1) develop a contractual plan with an entity referred to as a "Qualified Intermediary" to assist in the exchange and appoint into the sale and purchase agreements for the residential or commercial properties consisted of in the exchange; (2) obtain like-kind replacement residential or commercial property that amounts to or greater in value than the relinquished residential or commercial property (based upon net sales cost, not equity); (3) reinvest all of the net earnings (gross profits minus specific appropriate closing expenses) or cash from the sale of the given up residential or commercial property; and, (4) should replace the quantity of secured debt that was paid off at the closing of the given up residential or commercial property with new secured debt on the replacement residential or commercial property of an equivalent or greater quantity.

These requirements normally cause Investor's to view the tax-deferred exchange process as more constrictive than it actually is: while it is not acceptable to either take cash and/or settle financial obligation in the tax deferred exchange process without incurring tax liabilities on those funds, Investors might constantly put extra money into the transaction. Also, where reinvesting all the net sales profits is simply not possible, or offering outdoors money does not result in the very best business decision, the Investor may choose to utilize a partial tax-deferred exchange. The partial exchange structure will enable the Investor to trade down in worth or pull money out of the transaction, and pay the tax liabilities solely related to the amount not exchanged for certified like-kind replacement residential or commercial property or "cash boot" and/or "mortgage boot", while delaying their capital gain and devaluation regain liabilities on whatever part of the profits remain in reality included in the exchange.

Problems involving 1031 exchanges developed by the structure of the sale-leaseback.

On its face, the worry about combining a sale-leaseback deal and a tax-deferred exchange is not always clear. Typically the gain on the sale of residential or commercial property held for more than a year in a sale-leaseback will be treated as gain from the sale of a capital possession taxable at long-lasting capital gains rates, and/or any loss acknowledged on the sale will be treated as an ordinary loss, so that the loss reduction may be utilized to offset current tax liability and/or a potential refund of taxes paid. The combined transaction would permit a taxpayer to utilize the sale-leaseback structure to sell his relinquished residential or commercial property while retaining helpful usage of the residential or commercial property, generate proceeds from the sale, and after that reinvest those proceeds in a tax-deferred manner in a subsequent like-kind replacement residential or commercial property through the usage of Section 1031 without acknowledging any of his capital gain and/or devaluation recapture tax liabilities.

The very first problem can occur when the Investor has no intent to participate in a tax-deferred exchange, however has actually participated in a sale-leaseback transaction where the negotiated lease is for a term of thirty years or more and the seller has actually losses meant to balance out any identifiable gain on the sale of the residential or commercial property. Treasury Regulations Section 1.1031(c) offers:

No gain or loss is recognized if ... (2) a taxpayer who is not a dealership in realty exchanges city property for a cattle ranch or farm, or exchanges a leasehold of a charge with 30 years or more to run for genuine estate, or exchanges enhanced realty for unimproved property.

While this provision, which basically enables the creation of two unique residential or commercial property interests from one discrete piece of residential or commercial property, the charge interest and a leasehold interest, usually is considered as helpful because it produces a number of planning options in the context of a 1031 exchange, application of this arrangement on a sale-leaseback transaction has the result of avoiding the Investor from recognizing any appropriate loss on the sale of the residential or commercial property.

One of the managing cases in this location is Crowley, Milner & Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In Crowley, the IRS disallowed the $300,000 taxable loss deduction made by Crowley on their income tax return on the grounds that the sale-leaseback transaction they engaged in made up a like-kind exchange within the meaning of Section 1031. The IRS argued that application of area 1031 suggested Crowley had in fact exchanged their cost interest in their real estate for replacement residential or commercial property consisting of a leasehold interest in the same residential or commercial property for a regard to thirty years or more, and accordingly the existing tax basis had rollovered into the leasehold interest.

There were numerous problems in the Crowley case: whether a tax-deferred exchange had in reality happened and whether or not the taxpayer was qualified for the instant loss deduction. The Tax Court, enabling the loss reduction, stated that the deal did not constitute a sale or exchange because the lease had no capital worth, and promulgated the situations under which the IRS may take the position that such a lease carried out in truth have capital value:

1. A lease may be considered to have capital worth where there has been a "deal sale" or essentially, the sales cost is less than the residential or commercial property's fair market worth; or

2. A lease may be considered to have capital value where the rent to be paid is less than the reasonable rental rate.

In the Crowley deal, the Court held that there was no proof whatsoever that the list price or leasing was less than reasonable market, given that the deal was negotiated at arm's length between independent celebrations. Further, the Court held that the sale was an independent transaction for tax purposes, which indicated that the loss was appropriately acknowledged by Crowley.

The IRS had other grounds on which to challenge the Crowley transaction; the filing reflecting the instant loss deduction which the IRS argued remained in fact a premium paid by Crowley for the negotiated sale-leaseback deal, therefore appropriately must be amortized over the 30-year lease term rather than completely deductible in the present tax year. The Tax Court declined this argument as well, and held that the excess expense was consideration for the lease, but properly reflected the costs associated with conclusion of the structure as required by the sales agreement.

The lesson for taxpayers to draw from the holding in Crowley is basically that sale-leaseback deals might have unexpected tax repercussions, and the terms of the deal should be drafted with those effects in mind. When taxpayers are pondering this type of deal, they would be well served to think about carefully whether or not it is sensible to provide the seller-tenant a choice to buy the residential or commercial property at the end of the lease, particularly where the option rate will be below the reasonable market price at the end of the lease term. If their transaction does include this repurchase choice, not just does the IRS have the ability to potentially characterize the deal as a tax-deferred exchange, however they likewise have the capability to argue that the deal is actually a mortgage, instead of a sale (wherein the effect is the exact same as if a tax-free exchange occurs because the seller is not qualified for the instant loss deduction).

The issue is further complicated by the uncertain treatment of lease extensions developed into a sale-leaseback transaction under common law. When the leasehold is either prepared to be for 30 years or more or totals 30 years or more with included extensions, Treasury Regulations Section 1.1031(b)-1 classifies the Investor's gain as the cash got, so that the sale-leaseback is treated as an exchange of like-kind residential or commercial property and the money is treated as boot. This characterization holds despite the fact that the seller had no intent to finish a tax-deferred exchange and though the result contrasts the seller's best interests. Often the net result in these situations is the seller's acknowledgment of any gain over the basis in the genuine residential or commercial property asset, offset only by the allowable long-lasting amortization.

Given the serious tax effects of having a sale-leaseback transaction re-characterized as an involuntary tax-deferred exchange, taxpayers are well recommended to try to avoid the inclusion of the lease value as part of the seller's gain on sale. The most efficient manner in which taxpayers can prevent this addition has been to take the lease prior to the sale of the residential or commercial property but preparing it in between the seller and a controlled entity, and after that getting in into a sale made subject to the pre-existing lease. What this strategy permits the seller is a capability to argue that the seller is not the lessee under the pre-existing contract, and for this reason never ever received a lease as a part of the sale, so that any value to the lease therefore can not be taken into account in calculating his gain.

It is crucial for taxpayers to note that this technique is not bulletproof: the IRS has a variety of prospective actions where this technique has been used. The IRS may accept the seller's argument that the lease was not received as part of the sales deal, however then reject the part of the basis allocated to the lease residential or commercial property and corresponding increase the capital gain tax liability. The IRS might likewise choose to use its time honored standby of "kind over function", and break the transaction to its essential elements, wherein both cash and a leasehold were received upon the sale of the residential or commercial property; such a characterization would lead to the application of Section 1031 and accordingly, if the taxpayer receives money in excess of their basis in the residential or commercial property, would recognize their full tax liability on the gain.

Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None
0
Labels
None
Assign labels
  • View project labels
Reference: nelsonbown969/spbrealtor#4