Discussion:Cost segmentation / Segregation / Section 1031 Exchange...
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Cost segmentation / Segregation / Section 1031 Exchange...
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Cost segmentation / Segregation / Section 1031 Exchange...
| 5 August 2008 | |
| A new client showed up today and told me they had executed a Section 1031 exchange. On the face it appeared as if the transaction was handled properly. However, as we were closing they mentioned that after the fact they had a cost segmentation study done on the replacement property (it was a commercial building and land). Am I way off base here or would this nullify the intent of the 1031 exchange? The exchange was building and land for building and land--and to me by doing cost segmentation you are saying that a portion of the "building" is 5-year and 7-year property. Anyone ever run into this before? I'm wondering if we should just ignore the cost segmentation study at this point. | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| as a CPA I don't think that Circular 230 allows you to ignore the implication of information furnished by the client.
You have to separate the 1031 out into parts: like kind for like kind. thus you may have 7 or 8 1031's - assuming he had §1245 property relinquished | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| the good news is that his cost segregation study surely allows a faster write off of the boot than he would have had without it.
the bad news is that he probably woulnd't have had boot without the cost segregation study. | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| Kevinh5, thank you for your thoughts. I agree with what you said about Circular 230. In this case I'm saying to not use the cost segmentation data because there is no rule that says you have to segment costs. I would just depreciate the building over 39 years. Or are you saying that I am now locked into to using the cost segmentation since it was done? | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| 10.34 Standards for advising with respect to tax return positions and for preparing or signing returns
(a) Realistic possibility standard. A practitioner may not sign a tax return as a preparer if the practitioner determines that the tax return contains a position that does not have a realistic possibility of being sustained on its merits (the realistic possibility standard) unless the position is not frivolous and is adequately disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service. A practitioner may not advise a client to take a position on a tax return, or prepare the portion of a tax return on which a position is taken, unless-- (1) The practitioner determines that the position satisfies the realistic possibility standard; or (2) The position is not frivolous and the practitioner advises the client of any opportunity to avoid the accuracy-related penalty in section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code by adequately disclosing the position and of the requirements for adequate disclosure. (b) Advising clients on potential penalties. A practitioner advising a client to take a position on a tax return, or preparing or signing a tax return as a preparer, must inform the client of the penalties reasonably likely to apply to the client with respect to the position advised, prepared, or reported. The practitioner also must inform the client of any opportunity to avoid any such penalty by disclosure, if relevant, and of the requirements for adequate disclosure. This paragraph (b) applies even if the practitioner is not subject to a penalty with respect to the position. (c) Relying on information furnished by clients. A practitioner advising a client to take a position on a tax return, or preparing or signing a tax return as a preparer, generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the client. The practitioner may not, however, ignore the implications of information furnished to, or actually known by, the practitioner, and must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect, inconsistent with an important fact or another factual assumption, or incomplete | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| I am saying that the Cost Segregation report clearly says that some of what he bought as replacement property is NOT real estate. | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| Kevinh5, I see what you are saying now--sorry. When all was said in done very little of the replacement property was not real estate--less than 3%. To me the cost of the segmentation didn't produce much of a benefit in this case. | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| at least your fee can now be higher - you've got to do more work. Thank the segregationists for that!!!! | |
| 5 August 2008 | |
| LOL--thanks Kevin; I suppose I should be thankful they at least used a QI ;) | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| Kevinh5, I was thinking about this more last night. Am I right to say what should have happened was that a cost segmentation be done on both pieces of property? That was you would actually have information to do the multiple 1031's. | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| well, if the taxpayer had never segregated out §1245 property in the past, and has been depreciating the whole thing as real estate, I think he is SOL now. If he has only owned it for 2 or 3 years and could go back and amend prior returns, perhaps there is a chance.
Is there NOTHING he has added while he has owned it that is §1245? Check his depreciation schedule, then look for like-kind property in the replacement property cost segregation report. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| Well, I disagree, you traded land and building, for land and building, or real property for real property. Therefore, it is like kind for like kind. The classification of the property does not make it like kind. You can not trade a bull for a cow under Section 1031, however, you can trade a bull for bull. Bulls and cows have the same classification, other than for exchanges. The Section 1245 property is still real property. IMHO. | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| that flies in the face of the whole Cost Segregation theory, doesn't it, Roy?
it would be nice for our Cost Segregation experts to give their input here. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| But, how different is this from an exchange wherein the recipient converts the property to personal use after a year, or two years? Or would there be a safe harbor period before the Cost Seg could be called in? | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| the Cost Seg report will presumably be used to depreciate non-real estate assets more rapidly from day 1. My position is that the report just broke out the like kind (RE) from the non-like kind property.
So I think the situation IS different, DT. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| Non-real assets is not a term I would use.
Because the cost seg. separates what? It does not separates non-real from real, cost seg. separates non-structural components from structural components. Real property is still real property. My opinion as to actual tangible property acquire in the cited exchange would be that was boot. Hotels, restaurants, farms are the type of real property that could have tangible property in the exchange. | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| Edit: yes, I now can see that the parking lot etc could be depreciated differently than the building, both being real estate | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| How would parking lots, exterior lighting, fences, stripping, signs, interior roads, stoves, refrigerators, be handled in an 1031 exchange. Apartment complex exchanged for an apartment complex would have the same items.
In the original complex the buildings were not cost segregated. Can I now cost segregate the appliances without hurting the 1031 exchange? | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| the appliances would clearly not be real estate, but an apartment complex exchanged for a hotel would have several 1031s:
one for the real estate one for each class of other assets (appliances for appliances) | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| so my conclusion is now that Neil should look at the Cost Segregation Study for the replacement property (and depreciation schedule of relinquished property) to determine whether there was any non-real estate involved. If it was all real estate - no problem.
Thanks for helping me think this through! | |
| 6 August 2008 | |
| I interpret "class" here to mean class used for depreciable purposes:
Sec. http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Reg._1.1031(a)-1 (b) Definition of “like kind.” As used in section 1031(a), the words like kind have reference to the nature or character of the property and not to its grade or quality. One kind or class of property may not, under that section, be exchanged for property of a different kind or class. The fact that any real estate involved is improved or unimproved is not material, for that fact relates only to the grade or quality of the property and not to its kind or class. Unproductive real estate held by one other than a dealer for future use or future realization of the increment in value is held for investment and not primarily for sale. For additional rules for exchanges of personal property, see §1.1031 (a)–2. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| Are you using class as in class life, or class as in kind? | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 6 August 2008 |
| The division of property based on nature and character and kinds and classes means that real property can only be exchanged for other real property, personal property can only be exchanged for other personal property, etc. The determination of whether property is real or personal property depends on state law.
Tangible Property ----- Classes for 1031 (3) PRODUCT CLASSES. Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section, or as provided by the Commissioner in published
guidance of general applicability, property within a product class
consists of depreciable tangible personal property that is described
in a 6-digit product class within Sectors 31, 32, and 33 (pertaining
to manufacturing industries) of the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS), set forth in Executive Office of the
President, Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry
Classification System, United States, 2002 (NAICS Manual), as
periodically updated. Copies of the NAICS Manual may be obtained from
the National Technical Information Service, an agency of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, and may be accessed on the internet.
| |


