Home Page link  

sell home to your corp or LLC to become a rental and claim $500k exemption?

 

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated)

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
sell home to your corp or LLC to become a rental and claim $500k exemption? inky dink 07-29-2008
Posted by inky dink on July 29, 2008, 1:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options
I read, on a much less astute site than MTM, that you can sell your home to
your own S Corp (and thus I assume an LLC as well), claim the $500k (or
$250k single) income tax exemption on the gain of the sale of your home, and
keep the house in your separate entity as a rental. Your entity's
depreciation will then be based on its purchase price, not your original
acquisition cost. And, of course, "the IRS is fine with this".

comments?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Stuart Bronstein on July 30, 2008, 2:54 pm
Please log in for more thread options
rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

>
>> There is an AICPA Case Study that supports this theory because
>> Sec. 121 does not have any language that prohibits it when the
>> sale is to a related party. It is based on a private letter
>> ruling relating to the old Section 1034 deferral of capital gain
>> on the sale of your main home if you reinvest the proceeds in a
>> new home within two years. That section did not have any language
>> that prohibited the deferral of gain when the sale was to a
>> related party where it would be depreciable property.
>
> For the purpose of argument's sake, let's presume you can do this.
> Now tell me who is going to give your S-Corp a mortgage so you
> can have the proceeds from the sale? Is there a State other than
> California where mortgages do not have a "due on sale" clause?

Due on sale clauses are now permitted with respect to all loans made
by federally chartered or insured banks, due to federal regulations
promulgated a few years ago.

California had, by court decision, outlawed them as unreasonable
restraints on alienation as contrary to public policy. But since
such a large percentage of loans now do properly contain these
clauses, it would be hard to continue to argue that they're contrary
to public policy.

As a practical matter lenders will generally allow transfer to a
borrower's wholly owned corporation, since the legal liability
doesn't change much if at all - at least not in California.

> If you want a workable legal exploitation of the tax code,
> consider this. A Dentist buys a lot zoned commercial, gives a 20
> year lease of the land to a Professional Corporation which in
> turns builds a house to be used as its office and as offices
> leased to others, the PC pays the mortgage from the rents and
> depreciates the building. After 20 years or more, the Dentist
> terminates the lease, removes the tenants, sells her/his primary
> residence taking the $250K/$500K exemption, lives in the house for
> two years, and then sells it taking the exemption again.

If he's the only owner of the corporation, receiving the property in
his own name might constitute a taxable redemption to the extent its
market value exceeds his basis in the corporation.

If you're talking about an S-corp that conclusion would be different.

> The difference between this scenario and the OP's scenario is:
> 1) Economic Substance;
> 2) The ability to get a mortgage; and
> 3) Triple dipping (two exemption and 20+ years of depreciation).
>
> This can also be done by someone in the rental housing business
> who converts rental units into their primary residence every 2+
> years.
>
> The tax code favors people who engage in tax planning.

As one prominent federal judge famously said many years ago, it's ok
to avoid taxes, just not to evade them.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Alan on July 30, 2008, 3:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Dick Adams wrote:
>
>> There is an AICPA Case Study that supports this theory because
>> Sec. 121 does not have any language that prohibits it when the
>> sale is to a related party. It is based on a private letter ruling
>> relating to the old Section 1034 deferral of capital gain on the
>> sale of your main home if you reinvest the proceeds in a new
>> home within two years. That section did not have any language
>> that prohibited the deferral of gain when the sale was to a related
>> party where it would be depreciable property.
>>
>> You can read it here:
>> http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/taxadv/jul2008/casestudy.html
>
> For the purpose of argument's sake, let's presume you can do this.
> Now tell me who is going to give your S-Corp a mortgage so you
> can have the proceeds from the sale? Is there a State other than
> California where mortgages do not have a "due on sale" clause?
>
> If you want a workable legal exploitation of the tax code, consider
> this. A Dentist buys a lot zoned commercial, gives a 20 year lease
> of the land to a Professional Corporation which in turns builds a
> house to be used as its office and as offices leased to others, the
> PC pays the mortgage from the rents and depreciates the building.
> After 20 years or more, the Dentist terminates the lease, removes
> the tenants, sells her/his primary residence taking the $250K/$500K
> exemption, lives in the house for two years, and then sells it taking
> the exemption again.
>
> The difference between this scenario and the OP's scenario is:
> 1) Economic Substance;
> 2) The ability to get a mortgage; and
> 3) Triple dipping (two exemption and 20+ years of depreciation).
>
> This can also be done by someone in the rental housing business
> who converts rental units into their primary residence every 2+
> years.
>
> The tax code favors people who engage in tax planning.
>
> Dick
>
I'm going to assume that your two questions are rhetorical and
you are not looking for an answer.

For the record, I don't advocate entering into such a transaction
without getting a PLR.

P.S. Re California. I believe there is a federal law that makes
due on sale clauses on loans from federal banks enforceable in
all states. In addition, CA Civil Code 2924.6 appears only to bar
enforcement in limited situations.

2924.6. (a) An obligee may not accelerate the maturity date of
the principal and accrued interest on any loan secured by a
mortgage or deed of trust on residential real property solely by
reason of any one or more of the following transfers in the title
to the real property:
(1) A transfer resulting from the death of an obligor where
the transfer is to the spouse who is also an obligor.
(2) A transfer by an obligor where the spouse becomes a
coowner of the property.
(3) A transfer resulting from a decree of dissolution of the
marriage or legal separation or from a property settlement
agreement incidental to such a decree which requires the obligor
to continue to make the loan payments by which a spouse who is an
obligor becomes the sole owner of the property.
(4) A transfer by an obligor or obligors into an inter vivos
trust in which the obligor or obligors are beneficiaries.
(5) Such real property or any portion thereof is made subject
to a junior encumbrance or lien.
(b) Any waiver of the provisions of this section by an
obligor is void and unenforceable and is contrary to public policy.
(c) For the purposes of this section, "residential real
property" means any real property which contains at least one but
not more than four housing units.
(d) This act applies only to loans executed or refinanced on
or after January 1, 1976.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Bill Brown on July 30, 2008, 8:55 pm
Please log in for more thread options
One final comment with regard to corporations.

IRC Section 351 is not an election.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Stuart Bronstein on July 30, 2008, 9:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options

> One final comment with regard to corporations.
> IRC Section 351 is not an election.

Right. If you fit within its ambit, there's no tax effect on a
transfer to a corporation.

The suggested scenario is not the typical §351 situation, so it's not
obvious that it would apply. But I can certainly imagine the IRS
arguing it, and a court being convinced by it.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Similar ThreadsPosted
how do I sell my business/s-corp February 12, 2007, 12:23 am
how do I sell my business shares in s-corp? February 12, 2007, 7:35 am
Buy property as an S-Corp with cash, and later sell it to myself for 30yr mortgage. May 8, 2007, 12:52 am
Sale of Main Home - $500,000 Exemption November 15, 2006, 10:06 pm
Claim home warranty, alarm system, or credit card interest? March 26, 2008, 12:18 pm
S-Corp with Home as Principal Place of Business April 23, 2006, 3:13 am
Re: Vacation Home Rental October 24, 2006, 7:08 am
Re: Vacation Home Rental October 28, 2006, 6:40 pm
Rental Home question August 14, 2007, 3:43 am
Home rental while working abroad March 13, 2008, 6:12 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap