Tag: real estate

Real Estate “Change in Ownership” Can Trigger Documentary Transfer Tax

Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, (9/22/14, B248536)

The California Court of Appeals has recently held that, as a general rule, the Documentary Transfer Tax (“DTT”) applies whenever there is a “change in ownership” of real property under the California Revenue & Taxation Code. In the case, 926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, the court held that the phrase “realty sold” under the DTT Act includes a “change in ownership” (subject to the limited exceptions expressly included in the DTT Act).  San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties have already enacted amendments to their DTT ordinances to provide for this result, and there are several other counties (most notably Los Angeles and San Diego) that have taken this position without any change to their ordinances.

ARTICLE BY

D. Matthew Richardson
OF
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Wisconsin – Don’t Forget to Take the Real Estate Developer’s Rights as Collateral

Michael Best Logo

The long real estate recession is over, and thank goodness for that. New developments are sprouting up everywhere in response to pent-up demand. There are even condominium developments beginning or long-stalled condominium developments resuming, and it’s time for a reminder about taking collateral in these unique projects.

A condominium is purely a creature of statute. Chapter 703 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the Wisconsin Condominium Act, defines what rights are created when a developer, called a “Declarant,” records a condominium declaration which contains the magic language, “I hereby submit this land to the condominium form of ownership.”

As soon as that declaration, and its accompanying condominium plat, are recorded in the Register of Deed’s Office in the county where the land is located, they create condominium units, which are legally existing separate boxes of air, whether anything is physically built or not. Everything inside the boundaries of the land submitted to the declaration is either a unit, or a common element. Each unit can be separately owned and mortgaged, carries a separate real estate tax bill, and is capable of being assessed a lien for that unit’s share of the expenses of owning, maintaining, and insuring the common elements.

Under the Condominium Act, the Declarant can write into the Declaration, special rights reserved only to the Declarant, and to those the Declarant authorizes to specifically receive those rights, including the Declarant’s lender. These rights are very important, and taking a security interest in those rights can make a significant financial difference to a lender, should the lender need to foreclose those rights, or put them into a receivership. Those rights can include:

  • the right to expand the condominium into more land reserved as the “Expansion Land;”

  • the right to create more units in the condominium;

  • the right to avoid paying a full association assessment for each of the units, as long as it pays the associations’ costs above what other unit owners pay under the association budget;

  • the right to reconfigure the boundaries between units by combining units and separating units;

  • the right to control the condominium association until a sufficient number of the units in the condominium have been sold to unrelated third parties;

  • in some limited circumstances, the power to unilaterally amend the declaration; and

  • the right to declare easements over the common elements of the condominium.

The correct way for a lender to take a security interest in these Declarant rights is to take a collateral assignment of declarant’s rights, in a manner similar to an assignment of rents, which gives an immediate grant to the lender of these rights, with a limited license back to the Declarant to exercise these rights, as long as the Declarant is not in default.

ARTICLE BY

Nancy Leary Haggerty
OF
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

IRS Ruling Creates Opportunities for Tax Savings by Companies With Substantial Real Estate Assets

Katten Muchin Law Firm

On July 29, Windstream announced that it plans to spin off certain telecommunications network assets into an independent, publicly tradedreal estate investment trust (REIT). Windstream made the announcement after it obtained a favorable private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the tax-free nature of the spin-off and the qualification of the spun-off entity’s assets as real property for REIT purposes.

Under the transaction, Windstream will spin off its existing fiber and copper network, real estate, and other fixed assets into a publicly traded, independent REIT. The REIT’s primary activity will be to lease the use of the assets back to Windstream through a long-term “triple net” exclusive lease. Windstream shareholders will retain their existing shares and receive shares in the REIT commensurate with their Windstream ownership. The transaction is intended to effectively enable Windstream to deduct, for federal income tax purposes, the amount of rent paid to the REIT without a corresponding corporate level income tax inclusion in income by the REIT—estimated to generate up to a $650 million annual overall reduction in taxable income between Windstream and the REIT.

Particularly notable about this transaction is that the private letter ruling obtained by Windstream is seemingly an indication by the IRS that it will respect the tax-free transaction of a spin-off even when coupled with an election for REIT status. The fact that the ruling recognized transmission infrastructure (e.g., wires and cable), in addition to the related real estate, as qualifying assets for REIT purposes is also a key development. The IRS issued proposed regulations in May that provided more specific guidance on what types of assets would be considered “real property” for purposes of meeting the requirements for making a REIT election, and Windstream’s private letter ruling is among the first to address the issue in light of the new regulations.

These developments mean that a REIT spin-off transaction might be available to many kinds of businesses. Companies (other than master limited partnerships) with similar assets, such as telecommunications, cables, fiber optics, and data centers, may be wise to explore opportunities to realize substantial tax savings through a similar transaction. However, there are several challenges that must be overcome to execute a successful REIT spin-off transaction.

ARTICLE BY

Jill E. Darrow
Reid A. Mandel
Glenn S. Miller
Saul E. Rudo
 
OF
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Will Governor Christie Extend the Moratorium on Non-Residential Development Fees?

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

A new bill (A1907) that would extend the statewide moratorium on the collection of non-residential development fees (“NRDFs”) recently passed both the New Jersey State Assembly and Senate. It now awaits Governor Christie’s signature. If signed into law, the bill would reinstate the moratorium on the collection of NRDFs that expired July 1, 2013, extending it to December 31, 2014. Developers who paid NRDFs during that period would be eligible to seek a refund, which must be granted so long as the NRDF has not already been expended for affordable housing.

NRDFs were initially established in New Jersey by P.L. 2008, c. 46 and codified in the Municipal Land Use Law. For any non-residential development, the required NRDF is 2.5% of the equalized assessed value of land and proposed improvements. The NRDF is collected at the municipal level and paid into a state fund for the development of affordable housing.

The initial moratorium on the collection of NRDFs was contained in P.L. 2009, c. 90 and ended July 1, 2010. The second moratorium was found in P.L. 2011, c. 122, which extended the moratorium to July 1, 2013. As of July 1, 2013, municipalities were again required to impose a n NRDF on new non-residential development. No NRDFs may be assessed against projects that received site plan approval prior to July 1, 2013, provided that a construction permit is issued by July 1, 2015.

If signed into law, the re-imposition of the moratorium would be an important albeit relatively short lived, benefit to non-residential developers.

ARTICLE BY

Michael A. Bruno
Steven P. Gouin
Of:
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C

Attention Tenants! Grow-NJ Tax Credits Without Prevailing Wage

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

A little known regulation makes a big difference for tenants taking less than 55% of a leased facility. Namely, these tenants may be eligible to receive millions of dollars of monetizable corporate income tax credits under New Jersey’s Grow-NJ Program, without having to comply with that program’s prevailing wage mandate. For many, especially suburban tenants, that equates to a great deal of free money.

Grow-NJ is economic incentive program born out of the New Jersey Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 (L. 2013, c. 161) (“EOA”) and administered by the New Jersey Economic Development Agency (“NJEDA”). The goal of the program is to encourage businesses to either stay in or relocate to New Jersey. The program does this by offering tax credits for each job created or retained that range from $500 to $5000 per job, depending on the scope, location, and industry of the project.

However, the EOA specifies that each Grow-NJ recipient must agree to pay the “prevailing wage” to its contractors. The “prevailing wage” is that wage and fringe benefit rate based on collective bargaining agreements established for a particular craft or trade in the locality where the project is taking place. In New Jersey, prevailing wage rates vary by county and statewide and by the type of work performed.

Paying the “prevailing wage” can increase the cost of tenant work by 20% to 30% over non-prevailing wage. Though less of a concern in urban areas where tenants are likely to use union workers, in suburban areas, paying the “prevailing wage” may add substantial costs to the project. Depending on size of the award, this added cost may negate the value of the tenant’s Grow-NJ tax credits.

However, the NJEDA’s regulations provide an important exception to Grow-NJ’s prevailing wage requirements. Under the N.J.A.C. 19:30-4.2, the prevailing wage need not be paid on any project where:

(1) It is performed on a facility owned by a landlord of the entity receiving the assistance;

(2) The landlord is a party to the construction contract; and

(3) Less than 55 percent of the facility is leased by the entity at the time of the contract and under any agreement to subsequently lease the facility.

Because of this regulation, tenants taking less than 55% of a leased facility may be able to benefit from Grow-NJ’s tax credits, without paying “prevailing wage” for their fit-out.

Article By:

Michael A. Bruno
Steven P. Gouin
Of:
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

Tax Court Holds that a Trust can Qualify for the "Real Estate Professional Exception" of Section 469(c)(7)

Proskauer

The Tax Court recently handed down its decision in Frank Aragona Trust v. Commissioner, ruling that a trust can qualify for the real estate professional exception of Section 469(c)(7). By taking into account the actions of the trustees, a trust can be considered to be materially participating in real estate activities. This means that losses from real estate activities can be treated as nonpassive and therefore deductible in determining the trust’s taxable income. This decision is especially relevant to trusts that own business as it affects the application of the passive activity loss rules in Section 469 and whether income from those activities is subject to the new 3.8% net investment income Medicare surtax under Section 1411.

The Frank Aragona Trust (the “Trust”) was a Michigan trust that owned several pieces of real property and was also involved in the business aspects of developing and maintaining the property. The Trust had six trustees, three of whom were also employees of Holiday Enterprises, LLC (the “LLC”). The LLC was owned 100% by the Trust. The LLC also employed other professionals.

The Trust had losses in 2005 and 2006 from its real estate activities and deducted those losses(on the basis that they resulted from nonpassive activities) on its income tax returns. In issuing a notice of deficiency for those tax years, the Service determined that the real estate activities were passive under Section 469 and therefore any related losses were not deductible.

In general, real estate rental activity is considered passive regardless of whether the taxpayer materially participates in the real estate business. However, there is an exception for “real estate professionals” under Section 469(c)(7). Before the Tax Court, the Trustees argued that the Trust was a “real estate professional” as defined in Section 469(c)(7) so that the losses were considered to be from nonpassive activities and therefore deductible. To qualify for the real estate professional exception, a taxpayer must pass two tests. First, more than one-half of the personal services performed in a taxable year must be performed in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates. Second, the taxpayer must perform more than 750 hours or services during the taxable year in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates. The Service argued that the regulations to Section 469(c)(7) define “personal services” as “work performed by an individual in connection with a trade or business [emphasis added].” Because the trust was not an individual, it could not perform personal services and therefore did not fall under the Section 469(c)(7) exception.

The Tax Court rejected the Service’s argument that the trust could not be considered an individual under Section 469(c)(7) and the associated regulations. Further, the Court found that the Trustees’ participation in the real estate activities met the material participation requirements of Section 469(c)(7) because they were regular, continuous and substantial. The Court determined that the participation of the Trustees should be considered in determining whether the taxpayer (the Trust) materially participated in the real estate activities. The Service argued that the activities of the Trustee should only apply if they are performed in their capacity as Trustees (as opposed to employees of the LLC). Here, the Court looked to Michigan law, under which trustees are required to administer trusts solely for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries. The Court explained that the Trustees could not simply stop acting as Trustees because they were also employees of the LLC, so that their activities in other capacities could be considered in whether the Trust was a material participant in the real estate activities.

In summary, a trust may be able to qualify for the real estate professional exception of Section 469(c)(7). If the trust qualifies for the exception, losses from the associated real estate activities may be deductible on the trust’s income tax return. This distinction has increased importance with the application of the new 3.8% net investment income Medicare surtax under Section 1411.

Article By:

Albert W Gortz
George D Karibjanian
David Pratt
Mitchell M Gaswirth
Andrew M Katzenstein
Henry J Leibowitz
Of:
Proskauer Rose LLP

 

U.S. Tax Court Rejects Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Restrictive View of Trust Material Participation

Barnes Burgandy Logo

The U.S. Tax Court recently issued a taxpayer favorable opinion regarding how a trust materially participates in its activities. The court’s holding will make it easier for trusts to currently deduct expenses against non-passive income and to exclude income from the reach of the new 3.8% net investment income tax.

In Frank Aragona Trust v. Comm’r, the court held that in determining whether a trust materially participates in its activities, the activities of the trustees, including their activities as employees of the businesses owned by the trust, should be considered. The court’s opinion directly conflicts with recent IRS guidance that only a trustee’s time spent acting in a fiduciary capacity counts toward the trust’s material participation – a standard that would be very difficult for most trusts to meet. See Technical Advice Memorandum 201317010.

In Frank Aragona Trust, a Michigan trust owned rental real estate activities and engaged in holding and developing real estate. The trust conducted some of its activities directly, and others through its wholly-owned business, Holiday Enterprises, LLC. The trust had six trustees, three of whom worked full-time for Holiday Enterprises. The IRS argued that the participation of the trustee-employees should be disregarded. The court disagreed and concluded that the participation of the trustee-employees should be counted and further, that the participation of the trust’s six trustees was sufficient to meet the material participation standard. The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Michigan law requires trustees to “administer the trust solely in the interest of the trust beneficiaries” even when they are participating through a business wholly-owned by the trust. This decision provides helpful authority for trusts, their trustees and their advisors in navigating the complex passive activity loss and net investment income tax rules.

However, the decision in Frank Aragona Trust does not answer all of the outstanding questions regarding material participation of trusts. In recently finalized regulations implementing the net investment income tax, the Treasury Department and the IRS requested public comments on rules regarding material participation of trusts, which indicates that the IRS may finally undertake a formal project to provide long-awaited guidance on this issue.

Article By:

Michala P. Irons
Randal J. Kaltenmark
William M. Pope
Douglas S. Robson
Howard J. Rubin
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

It’s That Time of the Year Again Re: Wisconsin Property Taxes

Michael Best Logo

It’s time to open up the unwelcome envelope with your property tax bill inside. Property taxes are necessary, of course, for roads and schools and all of the other services your property receives, but you should take some time to make sure that you are not paying more than your fair share of these taxes.

Wisconsin’s State Constitution has a provision requiring that all real estate be taxed “uniformly.” Regular real estate and personal property is taxed by the local municipality. Property which is used for manufacturing purposes, is taxed by the State of Wisconsin, in an effort to make sure that manufacturing property throughout the State is taxed in the same manner. Land which is in agricultural use enjoys a separate “use value assessment” system, which not only allows a lower assessment for land in that use, but also requires a per-acre penalty if that land is removed from the ag use, as defined by those statutes.

Of course, each of those taxing categories is controlled by pages of regulations containing definitions and limitations which are too complicated to insert into this article. Be aware that if you bought a parcel during calendar year 2013, your tax assessment may rise next year to the sale price named on the Transfer Tax Return filed with that deed, and you will receive a notice next spring of that increased assessment. The notice will tell you the procedure for contesting that new higher assessment and the time period, usually very short, during which you must file an appeal or lose the opportunity for another year. However, if your tax assessment should have been reduced and was not, you might not receive a notice at all, which means you must affirmatively seek out the date for filing the tax challenge and the forms needed to preserve the right to challenge. You must affirmatively notify the assessor if you demolished a building, lost a tenant, suffered a casualty loss, signed new leases for lower rents or had to offer rent concessions to renew a lease, or moved a parcel of land into or out of ag use, if you want to be sure the tax assessment is properly calculated for the actual use of the land and actual income from it. We can help you evaluate behind the scenes if the property is accurately assessed, and if it is not, file and defend a claim for you. We often charge a nominal amount for the investigation and then take the tax challenge on a contingency basis so you are only billed if we secure a tax savings for you.

Article by:

Nancy Leary Haggerty

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

One Day Left to Share Your Comments about the Closing Process with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)!

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

On January 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a notice and request for information in the Federal Register regarding the real estate closing process. Specifically, the CFPB is interested in knowing the consumer “pain points” associated with mortgage closing and how those pain points might be addressed by market innovations and technology.

The bureau wants input from consumers, mortgage lenders, housing attorneys, settlement closing agents, real estate agents, fair lending and consumer advocates – basically anyone and everyone with closing experience. This is your chance to share your perspective, whether good or bad, and help the closing process to be a smoother and more consumer friendly one for your future purchase, sale or refinance. The information collected during the comment period will be used to help the CFPB come up with future improvement initiatives. This is part of the larger “Know Before You Owe” project, which is intended to help consumers understand and navigate the home-buying process.

The CFPB has made it easy to share information by listing seventeen specific questions they would like responses to, including:

1. What are common problems or issues consumers face at closing? What parts of the closing process do consumers find confusing or overwhelming?

2. Are there specific parts of the closing process that borrowers find particularly helpful?

3. What do consumers remember about closing as related to the overall mortgage/home-buying process? What do consumers remember about closing?

4. How long does the closing process usually take? Do borrowers feel that the time at the closing table was an appropriate amount of time? Is it too long? Too short? Just right?

5. How empowered do consumers seem to feel at closing? Did they come to closing with questions? Did they review the forms beforehand? Did they know that they can request their documents in advance? Did they negotiate?

6. What, if anything, have you found helps consumers understand the terms of the loan?

7. What are some common errors you have seen at closing? How are these errors detected, if at all? Tell us about errors that were detected after closing.

8. What changes, diverging from what was originally presented at closing, often surprise consumers at closing? How do consumers react to changes at closing?

9. How, if at all, do consumers typically seek advice during closing? In person? By phone? Online?

10. Where and to whom do consumers turn for advice during closing? Whom do they typically trust?

11. What documents do borrowers usually remember seeing? What documents they remember signing?

12. What documents do consumers find particularly confusing?

13. What resources do borrowers use to define unfamiliar terms of the loan?

14. What, if anything, would you change about the closing process to make it a better experience for consumers?

15. What questions should consumers ask at closing? What are the most important pieces of information/documents for them to review?

16. What is the single most important question a consumer should ask at closing?

17. What is the single most important thing a consumer should do before coming to the closing table?

You can submit answers to these questions, along with your own additional comments, online by visiting this webpage:  http://www.regulations.gov. But time is of the essence! The comment period closes tomorrow, February 7th. Hurry and let your opinions be known!

 

Article by:

Brittany C. MacGregor

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Prospective Waivers of the Fair Market Value Defense Held Invalid in Arizona Court

Lewis Roca Rothgerber

In an opinion issued last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that commercial borrowers and guarantors ‎cannot prospectively waive their right to limit their damages in a deficiency action on the basis of the fair market value of property ‎sold through a trustee’s sale, potentially impacting any loan agreements that provide for such ‎waivers.‎ The holding does not affect most residential loans, for which lenders are generally precluded from recovering deficiencies.

Background

A.R.S. § 33-814(A) provides that borrowers, and by extension guarantors, are entitled to a credit ‎on the underlying debt for the greater of the trustee’s sale price or the fair market value of the ‎trust property at the time of the sale, as determined by the court at a priority hearing. The ‎purpose of these provisions is to protect borrowers from inequities that may result if the property ‎is sold below market value. In an effort to avoid litigation, lenders sometimes include language ‎in loan documents stating that borrowers and guarantors waive the ability to seek a determination ‎of market value.‎

The Arizona Court of Appeals Abolishes Prospective Waivers of the Fair Market Value Defense

A prospective waiver of a fair market defense hearing was at issue in CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. ‎Loop 101, LLC., No. 1 CA-CV 12-0167, 2013 WL 4824461 (Ariz. App. Sept. 10, 2013). In that ‎case, a lender made a $15.6 million loan, which was secured by a deed of trust. In the note and ‎guaranty, the borrower and guarantors waived “the benefits of any statutory provision limiting ‎the right of [lender] to recover a deficiency,” including the benefits of A.R.S. § 33-814. Even ‎more specific, the deed of trust stated that the sales price at the trustee’s sale would conclusively ‎establish the fair market value of the property and that the borrower and guarantors waived their ‎ability to seek a fair market value determination.‎

Following a default, the lender initiated a trustee’s sale, at which the lender’s assignee purchased ‎the property with a credit bid of $6.15 million. At the time, about $11.2 million remained due on ‎the note. The lender’s assignee then brought a deficiency action against the borrower and ‎guarantors for the difference. The borrower and guarantors counterclaimed, asserting that the ‎credit bid was unreasonably low. The court denied a motion to dismiss the counterclaims, ‎holding the borrower and guarantors were entitled to a fair market value hearing ‎notwithstanding the written agreements to the contrary. ‎

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the deed of trust statutes impliedly prohibit ‎prospective waivers of fair market value hearings. The court relied on the purpose of the deed of ‎trust statutes, the comprehensiveness of the protections, and the legislative history, which the ‎court stated was to protect borrowers from the unfairness that results if a property is sold at a ‎trustee’s sale below its market value. According to the court, allowing parties to prospectively ‎waive the protection of a fair market value hearing would effectively undo the statutory scheme ‎and undermine an important purpose of the deed of trust statutes.‎

Conclusion

Arizona’s appellate courts have shown increased interest of late in foreclosure-related cases. ‎Earlier this summer, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals abolished prospective ‎waivers by borrowers of the residential anti-deficiency protections under A.R.S. § 33-814(G) based on public ‎policy grounds. Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic, 232 Ariz. 286, 304 P.3d 1109 (App. ‎‎2013). In another decision out last week, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals, citing ‎Parkway Bank, declined to consider whether a guarantor can waive same the protections of A.R.S. § ‎‎33-814. First Credit Union v. Courtney, No. 2 CA-CV 2013-0005, slip op. (Ariz. App. Sept. 12, ‎‎2013). Lewis Roca Rothgerber continues to monitor the developments in this evolving area.‎

Lenders, borrowers, and guarantors should consider how these recent decisions affect their ‎existing and prospective lending relationships.

Article by:

Of: