Discussion:Building condos - land development costs

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Building condos - land development costs
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Building condos - land development costs

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
Hi everyone. I have a single-member LLC client that is building condos which will get start to sell in 2008. I am still working on his 2007 tax return which is when he started to build the condos.

My question is how to treat the land and its development costs. A homeowner's association was formed which I believe will be used to own the property although the title has not transferred yet.

Question:

1) If the land cost $200K and the property development cost $500K, I assume those costs should be treated on the Schedule C as part of COGS and as ending inventory, correct?

2) What happens on Schedule C to the $700K of costs when the property gets transferred to the Homeowners Association?

3) Is it prudent to make the election to allocate costs based upon estimated costs?

4) What accounting method....accrual? (the average 3-yr receipts will not exceed $10 million)

Thanks for any thoughts about any or all of the above.

Larry0434 (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
Go Rev. Proc. 92-029

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
Condos are never treated as inventory for tax purposes.

While I agree Rev Proc 92-029 can be applicable, I use 263A when it is more advantageous than 92-029. I also note that parts of 92-029 maybe in conflict with 263A.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

30 September 2008
RoyDaleOne -

If you say that condos are never treated as inventory then how would you report the costs to build the condos that accumulate over the years during construction?

Where on Schedule C would you report the costs?

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Capitalized costs is the correct term. However, as long as you understand that accounting treatments such as LIFO, FIFO, or lower of cost or market is not available we accountants can call it inventory.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
On Schedule C the only costs you would report is the capitalized costs for the units sold. No beginning or ending inventory, or purchases should be reported.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
RoyDaleOne -

Are you saying that if the contruction process occurred during years 1 and 2 and condos started to sell in year 3 there would be no Schedule C filed for years 1 and 2 reporting the accumulation of costs as inventory?

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Well, taxalmancer, I don't know who you are, or purport to be, and now you are asking me to give you a specific recommendation. Specific recommendations is something I am trying to avoid doing in these forums, because I never know the "whole" set of facts, or circumstances, and therefore, I could easily , and have, made mistakes. I do try to point in what I believe is the correct direction.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
I do track mine, and report it as inventory...just seems to make more sense to me that way. It doesn't go on a 4562, and not on the Sch. C until sold as a cost. I like to show it somewhere...to that's how I do it. For all of them, actually, Sch. C/1120S/1065.

Belle (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
JR-that's my preferred method also.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
JR1 I am sure you are also electing lower of cost or market so you can get the write-downs on the inventory..... lol ...

I may do that also, however, it is not correct as you well know.

Belle (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
RD - how do you track the info/costs? Do you use a workpaper that you keep in the file; or footnote it perhaps? Always willing to learn a better method....

Larry0434 (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Looks like some are dancing around a pin. If your a real estate dealer, the real estate is inventory in your hand and resulting sale of property is stricly ordinary income. JR is correct. I have not ever heard of writing down real estate assets for lower cost or market. Of course, I never examined that particular issue. In regards to Belle, I accumulate costs per expenditure class and it is allocated to unit in accordance with the agreed method. Allocation method differs with each project.

Larry0434 (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Within a unit such as a townhome lot or condo lot, you may have specific expenditures related to those units only. Those are again accumulated and allocated in accordance with the agreed method. When allocating, I am spreading common area costs in development.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Larry0434 real estate is never inventory. That is you can not used inventory accounting methods in relationship to real estate period. You can NOT use lower or cost or market, that is an tangible goods inventory method. Inventory methods applies only to tangible goods. You capitalize the costs of producing the real estate. However the capitalized cost is allocated to specific units is what the discussion is about. The character of the income was never a question in this discussion. And you can not have a condo lot, by definition, condos do not include the land. If the land is included it should not be called a condo.

Belle, various methods depending on the way the client accumulates the costs. Speard sheets of the totals accumulated by the client, or a bunch of general ledger accounts, including contra accounts for removing costs to the profit loss, is the most common methods. Some software have the ability to handle work-in-process account allocations.

Phasing of the costs, is the one of the methods, I use.

For example a condo project with only two buildings, consisting of two phases, building one and building two. Under 263A using the phase approach, I would allocate all of the costs, such as, entrance, fire protection, etc. that was required in order to build the first phase, to the units in building one. Naturally, when phase two is started I would allocate those costs incurred that relate to phase two. Because the cost of the entrance, fire protection, etc. was properly allocated in phase one, there would be no allocation of these items to phase two. Naturally, phases must exist for this to be a proper allocation, and construction should follow the phases.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
RDO - for the record I am a CPA with 32 years of continuous experience in public accounting.

Following up what others have said I can not fathom how the costs can not be reported on Schedule C as inventory as they are incurred. If I am wrong that's fine, I just would like to know why so.

JR1 - if I read your post correctly you don't file a Schedule C until the first year a condo/townhouse/house is sold. Why wouldn't you be filing a Schedule C and recording the costs that were incurred as inventory in the years before sales occur?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
Oh, no, TA, I file the Sch. C as soon as biz begins...no revenue, no expenses, but showing the inventories. Well, there'll be some expenses which I don't allocate to the project, like truck, cellphone, bank charges, etc.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
JR....so you and I are on the same page.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
MSSP Construction Industry:

Quote

"HOMES BUILT FOR SPECULATION (NO CONTRACT)

  Homebuilders will purchase a number of lots from a developer of a subdivision to build houses. The homebuilder may build some of the homes as speculative (spec) homes. Speculative homes are not built under a contract. In the industry, homes built for speculation that are on hand at year end are referred to as inventory of unsold houses or work in process. These speculation houses do not meet the definition of inventory in the Code. The Internal Revenue Code defines inventory as tangible personal property. Speculation houses are capital assets as defined in IRC section 263. The builder owns the real property (land) and the house inherently attached to the land. Courts have consistently held that developed real property must be accounted for under a capitalization method. See W.C. & A.N. Miller Development Co. v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 619 (1983); Homes by Ayres v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-475, aff'd, 795 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1986). See also Rev. Rul. 86-149, 1986-2 C.B. 67; Rev. Rul. 66247, 1966-2 C.B. 198."

Read for yourself....

I am not saying you should not do what you are doing on Schedule C, and I acknowledge that is common practice. But calling a duck, a pig, and putting lipstick on it does not made it a pig. Calling houses inventory does not made them inventory for tax purposes. The only point is that inventory accounting methods can not be used for real estate.

Well, Taxalmancer with all your experience you have, you already know this stuff, and just are testing us.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Does anyone think the three year receipts test for 10M applies to home builders?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
By the same token, they say that it ISN'T inventory, but 263 applies, which normally is an inventory issue! And so what's the diff? Much ado about nothing. As long as you're not deducting current costs of construction, I can't see how it matters what you call it. We call it Jobs in Progress, which is awfully close to Work In Progress, which refers to inventory. No matter.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
And again, for a return with no Balance Sheet, to report no revenue and deduct truck and phone expenses without any other activity showing seems to be asking for trouble. Just me.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
JR I agree much ado about nothing to a professional that knows what he is doing. But non-professionals and professional inexperienced in a particulair area ask questions in these forums all the time, and could easily be misled. I know I have ask such questions myself.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

October 1, 2008
Good, I was worried that I was missing something there. I believe you before I believe me nearly always!

TDono2 (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
Taxalmancer - I've noticed that it helps tremendously if you fill in your profile before you post your first question/answer. I've heard that most of the more "experienced" TA peeps like to look at a profile before answering a question. It helps them couch the answer in a way more appropriate with the experience you should have based on your profile. Now if you cheat in your profile - all gloves are off!

BTW - peeps = People (for you unedumecated few)

Oh and BTW = By the Way

AND unedumecated = hill talk for a lack of education (my roots keep poking up, here!)

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

1 October 2008
RDO - I could have a hundred of experience as a CPA but that doesn't help me when I encounter areas I am not familiar with. All of our time is more valuable than to play games here.

I'll take a look at citations. Thanks for those.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

4 October 2008
If I may interject...I have read the string of comments and I think everyone is basically saying the same thing, just in a different way using different terminology. Land Developers are subject to the UNICAP rules of Section 263A. As such, costs must be accumulated and would be shown on the taxpayer's Balance Sheet as an asset...Call it Inventory, call it Construction in Progress or call it whatever you'd like. The jist is that this "asset," whatever you want to call it, can't be charged to expense (i.e. Cost of Goods Sold) until it is sold. I think we can all agree on that. I myself consider the accumulated capitalized costs to be termed "Inventory" since the condo units are held for sale in the ordinary course of business, just like a retailer or wholesaler holds widgets for sale/re-sale in the ordinary coure of its business. As far as the land being transferred to the HOA, my view is that this is a big nothing for tax purposes since the overlying condo units have not been sold. The cost of the land should be spread across the condo units. Also, I would argue that an "inventory method" is indeed being used with respect to the sale of condo units...specific identification.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

4 October 2008
Yes, specific identification is an inventory cost method, used by car dealers sometimes, and others. However that is GAAP speak, or common accounting speak, it is not tax speak. Yes the unsold condos are an asset, however, you would lose your argument in a court or with the IRS as to the correct tax terminology. The outcome maybe the same provided you reach the costs.

Inventory is defined for tax purposes as consisting of tangible personal property, and does not include real property, such as condos. You can not elect to write down condos to lower of cost or market as you can with an inventory method costing method, which as I recall is required by GAAP.

Quote

1.263A-2(b)(2)(i)(B) Non-inventory property held for sale. Non-inventory property held by a taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's trade or business.

End Quote

You will find condos covered by this Regulation as non-inventory property held...

As I have stated I agree that as a professional if you know what you are doing concerning the treatment of condos as inventory or not I don;t see any problem. I just don't want the inexperienced or non-professional to be misled.

Ckenefick (talk|edits) said:

15 October 2008
RoyDaleOne...Again, we are going around with the semantics. But I disagree that "specific identification" is not "tax speak." FIFO and LIFO are cost flow "assumptions" and are often used because a taxpayer doesn't know which specific items he actually sells when he sells them. If the taxpayer is a diamond wholesaler, for example, and buys and sells two diamonds during the year - one costs him $500 and the other costs him $5,000,000, my bet is that when he sells the $5m diamond, he will charge $5m to COGS (not $500). Why? Because he can easily "specfically identify" the diamond that he sold. Moreover, this is the most accurate of all tax "inventory" methods" in this situation and which is why the IRS would have no problem with it.

I absolutely agree that one cannot write-down condos under an LCM method. I use the term "inventory" very loosely, meaning that it's some asset on one's Balance Sheet. When people talk about Section 263A they talk about having to "inventory" certain costs that must be thrown onto the Balance Sheet. Here, the word "inventory" isn't used mean anything other than this. It is simply a word commonly used by tax accountants to mean, for example, that if you are a real estate developer, you can't just expense out your development costs to the P&L as you incur them.

Also, if you look at the COGS section of an entity tax return, there are lines for "Beginning of Year Inventory," "End of Year Inventory," and in between these two lines there is a line for "Additional Section 263A Costs."

Fgburden (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
I would be interested in any and all opinions regarding a client that bought and paid for land as an LLC, borrowed money to erect a 7 unit condo project. The LLC capitalized all costs over the last 5 years. The project was never completed beyond the foundation and subsequent events caused the project to be officially abandoned in 2008. So the question is, may the capitalized costs, not associated with purchasing the land be written off in the current year?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
not until a disposition of the property, fgbu

Fgburden (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
thanks Kevin. Now then the next question is, what to do about current year expenses such as real estate taxes and maintenance. Should those costs continue to be capitalized or may written off, since there is no longer a project?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
they now sound like investment expenses. pass them through. separately stated items

Fgburden (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
Thank you

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

28 October 2008
it wasn't the answer you wanted

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

29 October 2008
This project was subject to Section 263A, and 263A, or the Regulations cover what to do during a period when no production is accruing.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools

Discussion Forums