Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the May 2015 issue of this publication, we discussed the conversion of tenancies in common (TICs) to Delaware Statutory Trusts (DSTs) as a means of refinancing real estate projects with maturing loans while preserving the ability of the original TIC investors to dispose of their investment through a like-kind exchange in the future, and the general benefits and risks associated therewith. (See http://bit.ly/1kcJsDL.) In this article, we discuss some considerations for drafting master leases for DSTs utilized in like-kind exchanges.
A DST is a separate legal entity created as a trust under Delaware law. The importance of DSTs in connection with like-kind exchanges can be traced to Rev. Rul. 2004-86, in which the IRS ruled that an interest in a DST constituted good replacement property in an otherwise qualifying like-kind exchange involving real estate. (Note: This article focuses on the use of DSTs as part of like-kind exchanges, and particularly on syndicated offerings of DST interests to investors looking to engage in a like-kind exchange. DSTs obviously have a variety of uses outside this context to which the limitations discussed in this article may not be relevant.) This conclusion was based on the fact that: 1) the restrictions on the powers of the DST described in the ruling caused it to be classified as a trust rather than as an association or partnership for tax purposes; and 2) the trust should be disregarded for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Under existing rules, the exchange of a beneficial interest in a trust, corporation or partnership for real estate or a similar beneficial interest in a trust, corporation or partnership does not qualify as a like-kind exchange, even if the sole asset of such entity consists of real estate. Because the provisions of the trust in Rev. Rul. 2004-86 caused it to be treated as a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the acquisition of a beneficial interest in the DST, which owned rental real estate, was treated as an acquisition of an undivided interest in the underlying real estate held by the DST. Investors that had sold real estate could therefore acquire interests in a DST as replacement property in an otherwise qualifying like-kind exchange.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?