Contact Us
Categories
- Kentucky Consumer Protection Act
- Judgment creditors
- Fractional Investment
- Section 1031 transactions
- Investment
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Arbitration
- Breach
- Closing
- Closing Disclosure
- Good Faith Estimate
- HUD-1 Settlement Statement
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Lenders
- Minimum wage
- Truth in Lending Act
- “Know Before You Owe”
- Condemnation
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs)
- Mortgage
- Real Estate Law
- Reverse mortgages
- Zoning Regulations
- Affordable Housing
- Commercial Real Estate
- Economic Development
- Land Use Law
- Landlord
- Lease
- Planning and Zoning
- Property Titling
- Purchase Contract
- Rescission
- Same-Sex Couples
- Tenant
- URLTA
- Agritourism
- Deed
- Drones
- Homeowners Association
- Land Surveys
- LBAR
- National Association of Realtors (NAR)
- Plat
- Property Lines
- Property Survey
- Real Estate Agents
- Rural Areas
- Trulia
- Zillow
- Benningfield v. Zinmeister
- Boards of Adjustment
- Co-Signing
- Commercial Lease
- Conditional uses
- Condominium
- Deeds
- Dog owners
- Emergency Preparedness
- Emotional Support Animals
- ESIGN
- Exclusive Use Clause
- Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
- Horizontal Property Law
- Insurance Companies
- Insured
- Kentucky Condominium Act
- KRS 383.500
- KRS §258.235(4)
- Loans
- Multi-unit properties
- Natural Disasters
- Occupancy Fraud
- Overlay Zoning
- Screening
- Servicers
- Steenrod v. Louisville Yacht Club Association
- Title Insurance Policies
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Uncategorized
- Variances
- "Right-of-Way Agents"
- Bluegrass Pipeline
- Boilerplate Language
- Building Inspection
- Code Enforcement
- Conservation Easement
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)
- Credit Report
- Credit Score
- Easement
- Eminent Domain
- FICO
- General Forms
- Homebuyers
- Inspection
- Kentucky landowners
- KRS §383.580
- Power of Attorney ("POA")
- Security Deposit
- The Loan Estimate form
- Truth in Lending Statement
- Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
IRS: Bad News for REIT Spin-off Conversions
In late September, the IRS sent up as large of a red flag as possible concerning Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) spinoffs in IRS Notice 2015-59 and Rev. Proc. 2015-43. While these issuances did not change existing law, they did state a new no-rule policy with regard to tax-deferred PropCo/OpCo spin-offs under Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code (In these types of transactions, a property-holding company (“PropCo”) which is a subsidiary of an operating company (“OpCo”), purchases real estate owned by OpCo, then leases it back to OpCo and claims status as an REIT). Under the latest word from the IRS, unless there are “unique and compelling” circumstances, IRS will not issue private letter rulings on these types of transactions if real property owned by either PropCo or OpCo is the basis for REIT election for either company. Coupled with statements from the agency that these spin-offs and conversions give the agency “significant concerns,” these proclamations create significant market uncertainty as to the validity of such transactions.
To do such an REIT spin-off transaction, an existing company must qualify that the REIT has a 5-year history as an active trade or business. It became a matter of course that such a company would ask the IRS for a private letter ruling on this qualification. Now, however, the IRS feels that these types of transactions might pose problems under Section 355 when the transaction spins off an REIT from a C corporation.
For one thing, both PropCo and OpCo must both be engaged in an active trade or business, and a spin-off to merely hold property may fail this requirement. The IRS also expanded the exclusion on private letter rulings to include transactions where less than 5% of a corporation’s assets are relied upon to fulfill the active trade or business requirement, so the IRS takes this requirement especially seriously. The spin-off must also have a substantial non-tax business purpose – the transaction cannot be a mere tax avoidance measure. Finally, the transaction cannot serve mainly as a device for the distribution of earnings or profits for either company. To put it plainly, a company cannot spin off an REIT to a property-holding subsidiary merely for the tax benefit and expect the transaction to be tax-deferred, and the IRS is no longer going to give its seal of approval to such transactions up front.
The tax consequences of such a transaction failing to qualify under Section 355 can be significant, so this move on the part of the IRS injects a chill into the REIT marketplace. These releases suggest that the IRS will pay closer attention to such transactions in the future as well, so they should be structured with the utmost care and with significant emphasis placed on meeting the requirements of Section 355. For more information about REIT spin-offs and the tax treatment of such transactions after these IRS issuances, please contact the attorneys of McBrayer.
Preston Clark Worley is an associate with McBrayer law. Mr. Worley concentrates his practice in employment law, land development, telecommunications, real estate and affordable housing. He is located in the firm’s Lexington office and can be reached at pworley@mcbrayerfirm.com or at (859) 231-8780, ext. 1201.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.