Talk:Tenants in common 1031 exchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

COPIED FROM 1031 exchange

[edit] Moved from comment / review page

I'm an attorney, real estate broker and full time 1031 accommodator. I added a lot of stuff to this page maybe a year ago. I wrote the "qualified intermediary" section which has been changed a bit bu others.

However, now I log into the page and see that half of it is about tenant in common exchanges? Gee, I wonder who put that in there. Makes it look like that is the only way you can accomplish a 1031 exchange, and there are MANY risks involved. TICS are in no way the safest properties to exchange into.

"The recent tax ruling" DOES NOT give the approval that TIC companies want you to think it does.

Talk to an accommodator before you rely on this article. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.132.83 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that you'll find that this whole section was added by User talk:Stuart Chamberlin and then much (if not all) was reverted due to its copied source. When I saw it there, I cleaned it up a bit and gave it a bigger sub-heading. Don't know enough 1031 TICs to know if it is accurate.

Maybe we should propose placing it in a separate article, which I would support Viva-Verdi 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A separate article is more appropriate, however, the entire TIC section beyond the basic description is very misleading, and is basically an ad for the TIC industry. A good marketing piece for them.

Rev Rulling 2002-22, referred to here, which is always cited by the TIC industry as something that legitimizes their products, discusses whether these TIC interests are partnership interests or business entity interest as opposed to a real estate interest. It never mentions whether a TIC interest is suitable for a 1031 exchange. What it really says is that, if the TIC interest meets a long list of requirements, then it MIGHT be suitable IF request a ruling from the IRS on your PARTICULAR deal. It is not a blanket authority.

I work with this industry all the time. I have nothing against them. I just don't like to see blatantly BIASED marketing information in what is supposed to be a factual setting.

I think a "Neutrality in Doubt: heading is at least appropriate.

Now we certainly have two votes to creat a separate article. However, based on 67.126.132.83 (Talk) 's comments above, it looks like a lot of work needs to be done.

Maybe he/she can do it, if I creat a new article?? Viva-Verdi 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW ARTICLE NOW CREATED HERE. EXPERTS PLEASE HAVE AT IT..... Viva-Verdi 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The change looks good, except that everything under "How a 1031 exchange is accomplished" should be on the main 1031 page. I would still say there are misleading things under the tenants in common section, but changing it could lead to a revert war.

A TIC deal is just a partcular type of replacement property, and what we are talking about here is a sponsored deal with a very large piece of property, and many investors. Many many people own property with a few people as tenants in common.

I'd be happy to revise it and remove the bias. It would only result in a few changes really. It would remove the absolute confidence the current article displays in the validity of a sponsored TIC deal.

Please make any relevant changes. I guess that I copied over too much. Viva-Verdi 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which jurisdictions?

It seems pretty clear that this article applies only to real property in the United States. Would someone care to add the appropriate wording to make that clear? Is is a state or federal matter? Richard Pinch 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)