On Sep 23, 6:21*pm, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -


--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

The last time I checked, this was technically not the case. The
replacement property can be worth less. If it is, however, the excess
is taxable.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:JE5Bk.44974$Mh5.27525[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

I suggest that you read section 1031 for yourself. There is NO REQUIREMENT
to use an intermediary.

Where are you getting that from?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:JE5Bk.44974$Mh5.27525[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

of course, I am wrong here. Lack of sleep allowed me to forget that there
are not separate code sections for simultaneous and delayed exchanges; they
are both covered under section 1031.

Mark Bole: your posts have been spot on. I feel no need to comment
further.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Bill Brown" <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote in message
news:7b74700b-ad51-4eaf-aa58-a9fe145e4699[at]8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

my point exactly.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

yes, but that is not a 1031 "exchange". in a 1031 exchange, the qualified
intermediary SELLS the relinquished property.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In tax law, "sale" and "exchange" have different definitions. For IRC
Section 1031 to apply, the transaction has to be an "exchange" from
the taxpayer's point of view. If it is a "sale," then the taxpayer
cannot use Section 1031 to defer recognition of gain.

Folks who cannot cope with specific, legal definitions existing for
tax terms that have slightly (or significantly) different meanings in
general usage should find another line of work. Although I sometimes
do the same thing Dick did in the first post (use with its general
meaning a term that has a different tax meaning) it's sloppy and leads
to time wasting exchanges such as the one between Stussy and Faver.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:cNOAk.43910$Mh5.3614[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

No, it's not.

I give you property A and you give me property B. A and B are approximately
the same value, so no "boot."

That's an exchange and nothing was sold.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:gav483$5ee$2[at]snarked.org...
- quote -

on the contrary, it is impossible to have a 1031 exchange WITHOUT a sale.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Sep 18, 6:46*pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

taxpayer. That omits the taxpayer's accountant, banker, insurance
agent, etc. There are firms that exist to serve as accomodaters on
1031 exchanges.

Regards,
Bill

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy wrote:

- quote -

For purposes of discussion, it was already a given by the OP that it was
indeed a 1031 exchange. He wasn't asking if the transaction qualified
as a 1031 exchange, he was asking about one of the many rules that apply
to deferring some or all of the taxable gain from such a transaction.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Gil Faver" <rowdy'sboss[at]xxyz.com> wrote in message
news:0sAAk.226531$102.95785[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

Without indicating that there's an accomodator (or middleman - for a
multi-way exchange), a sale followed by a purchase isn't an exchange.
Otherwise, a sale does not constitute an exchange. If there's a sale,
there's no exchange - by definition.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

I was under the impression that pretty much anyone could serve as the
Qualified Intermediary, but you would want someone who could make sure all
the paperwork is done right. So maybe your buddy is not the best choice.
In addition to the standard (and not to be trivialized) "make sure they have
lots of experience" and "make sure they are bonded and/or insured", I noted
these limitations, which sort of surprised me:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_Intermediary

Anyone who is related to the taxpayer, or who has had a financial
relationship with them within the two years prior to the close of escrow of
the exchange can not be used as the QI. This means that the taxpayer cannot
use their current attorney, certified public accountant or real estate
agent. A corporation or other entity to act as Qualified Intermediary owned
by your CPA, CPA firm, real estate agent or attorney is likewise
disqualified.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:gaugau$2e6$1[at]snarked.org...
- quote -


I knew it! Let's quibble!

In fact, based on those facts, it might very well be a 1031 exchange.

and to think I was about to post a compliment to this group, grateful to
have gotten beyond its sins of the past where any use of the term "sold"
would immediately be pounced on as not being a 1031 exchange.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Thanks, Bill. That is what I thought.

Are there specific qualifications for who can be the
intermediary?

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gatiu3$3t8$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

Based on those facts, that's not a 1031 exchange.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Sep 18, 8:52*am, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

intermediary must be used), to defer all the gain on the property
given up, the acquisition cost of the new property must equal or
exceed the sales proceeds of the old property.


- quote -

If $Y is a part of $X, yes. (If $Y is in addition to $X, then the new
property must cost $X + $Y for all the gain to be deferred.)

Regards,
Bill

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On a 1031 Exchange where a property is sold and the
proceeds are invested in another property, am I
correct that the acquired propery must be of equal
or greater value of the property sold?

Example:
Property A is sold for $X (net of selling costs)
and its mortgage of $Y was paid off. Therefore,
as long as Property B must cost $X or more for
the transaction to be completely tax exempt?

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >