Volume 12 Issue 6
A Free House? Think About It!
© by Tax & Business Professionals
The following hypothetical situation is based upon
actual cases sent to us by Steve Staley, CPA, of Augusta, GA, in 1990, and Mike
O’Malley, CPA, of Bedford, MA, in 2000. The
common thread is the sale of a principal residence -- with the possibility of
moving the house!
While the tax law governing sales of residences has
changed considerably in that 10-year period (in 1990 taxpayers under age 55
could only rollover but not exclude gain on residences; in 2000 there is a broad
exclusion of such gain), the legal principles involved in both cases are
similar. We picked these two cases
because they illustrate the type of analysis you should be seeking for your
Mr. G. Reedy’s Offer
A developer, Mr. G. Reedy, says to Mr. Lucky,
"I want your land for development, but I really don’t want your house that
is on the land." Lucky thinks
quickly, "I own the adjacent lot, so I will have my principal residence moved
Next, Lucky comes to you, his advisor, and asks,
"Can I exclude the gain from the sale to the developer if I move my principal
residence?" At this point, you
scratch your head and wonder, "Hmm..., if all that is sold is a vacant lot
with the house removed, is this really the sale of a principal residence?"
You check some tax authorities and find that one
case, Poague v. United States, 90-2 USTC ¶50,448 (E.D. Va.1990), affd
without opinion, 947 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1991), suggests that if the seller
(Lucky) is required, pursuant to the sales contract, to remove all buildings and
improvements from the property sold, then the sale of the lot qualifies as "a
residence" for purposes of § 121. Other
rulings suggest that a transfer of land that does not include the house is not a residence.
Do You Need to Analyze the Situation Further?
The facts in Poague were unusual and the case
was in a different Federal Circuit from Lucky’s situation. Could, or should, the Poague case be relied upon? What if the Lucky-G. Reedy sales contract stated that Lucky had the
contractual right and obligation to remove the house?
The Tax and Business Professionals’ advice was to
have the sales contract state that the Seller was selling all of his rights to
the house and the land. Why word the contract in such a manner that the developer is
not legally bound to let Lucky remove his residence?
By wording the sales agreement as a complete sale of
all of Lucky’s interest, the IRS probably would be precluded from arguing that
the "residence" had not been sold. Would
such wording make it possible for the developer to change his mind and give
Lucky’s former residence to someone else? The answer is yes, but it would be economically impractical. If Lucky did not remove the house, then the developer would have to incur
the needless expense of moving or demolishing the house
What if Lucky Used the Poague Case Approach?
While there was perhaps some authority for Lucky
receiving the benefits of § 121’s $500,000 exclusion if Lucky had the
contractual right to remove the house, a sale of all of Lucky’s interest
seemed to be the best route to follow. It
seemed to us that despite the Poague case, the IRS could raise the
practical argument, "What has been sold except vacant land?"
The IRS could argue, with some force, that all that
has been sold was vacant land because Lucky still had his principal residence,
albeit on a different parcel of land. By
taking a relatively small chance that the developer might change his mind and
give the house to someone other than Lucky (or demolish it), Lucky is in a much
stronger position to withstand an IRS audit.
In Lucky’s situation there were gray areas, which
commonly occur in tax and business laws. Much
of what we do could be classified as "risk analysis," because in unusual
situations like Lucky’s, either the law or the authorities interpreting it, or
both, are unclear.
Services like ours are designed to assist you in
addressing these types of problems. If you have a matter, simple or complex in nature, and need
help, keep us in mind.
Previous Article | Next Article
List of Articles by Tax & Business Professionals
Published jointly by The Tax & Business Professionals, Inc. and the law firm of Newland & Associates as a service to their clients.
If you are a tax professional and would like more information about the subjects covered in this newsletter or any other tax and business matter, please call the Tax & Business Professionals, Inc. at (800)-553-6613, e-mail us at
, or visit our web site at http://www.tax-business.com.
For a full range of business law and tax-related services, call the law firm of Newland & Associates at (703) 330-0000.
If you are reading this newsletter but are not on our mailing list, and would like to be, please contact us at (800) 553-6613.
While designed to be accurate, this publication is not intended to constitute the rendering of legal, accounting, or other professional services or to serve as a substitute for such services.
Redistribution or other commercial use of the material contained in Tax & Business Insights is expressly prohibited without the written permission of Tax and Business Professionals, Inc.
You can search for information in the entire Authors Row section,
or in the entire site. For a more focused search, put your search word(s) in quotes.
Tax & Business Professionals Main | Authors Row Main | Home