Discussion:Real Estate from S-corp to LLC

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
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 --> Tax Questions --> Real Estate from S-corp to LLC


HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

15 February 2007
File under, it would have been nice to know this before they did it.

S-corp has 4 buildings with 4 branches of their business running in each one. Purchased in 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2005. Two were bought individually but shown on the corporate books and depreciated in the corp, and 2 were bought by the corporation.

Due to liability concerns they decided to spin each building off to a separate LLC. The 2 that were titled individually were so titled right before they spun them off. Everything is owned 50/50.

1- What problems are there regarding the buildings being owned individually but reported on the s-corp? Would it be best to show this as a loan or contribution at the time of purchase?

2 - Is there any way to avoid Sec 311 gain on either the properties that are titled in the name of the corporation, or shareholders(as they have been shown on corp balance sheet and depreciated)? I assume that the net FMV will be more than 2006 income, so that making it a "distribution of property" will not work. Is there a way to structure this under 351? Thank you.

PVVCPA (talk|edits) said:

February 15, 2007
Recommend they have the attorney that structured this deal prepare their returns this year.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 15, 2007
Or work closely with them. Had a similar issue and worked out a settlement agreement between shareholders and corp (this for the ones legally owned individually) so that no prior returns were required to be changed. I think Dennis first clued me in on this...and I led the attorney down that path. As to the two that the corp itself bought, hoping that those are the most recent, so that the sale of the buildings won't create much gain.

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

15 February 2007
Not knowing all of the facts, it sounds like doing actual spin-offs of S corporations would work.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 15, 2007
Not a bad idea for the two corp owned properties, esp. if they're not the most recent ones where the gain would be larger. HL, you cannot get those buildings that the corp actually owns without a sale. That's it. So LH's idea might at least provide separation from the existing corp, and since the buildings would be the only thing in the new S's, blowing the S election and having those usual nightmares would be minimized.

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
Thanks, but I am not understanding exactly how you are suggesting doing this. Thanks

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
The oldest (1990 and newest 1995) are individually owned. It would be nice to be able to spin off, but they have been transferred to new LLC's and recorded as such.

FTF65 (talk|edits) said:

February 16, 2007
On the S Corp-owned properties: not sure if this would fly, but you could check the box on the LLC's (up to 75 days retroactively) and treat as S corporations which might get you to LH's spin-off theory?

Alternatively, if the S corporation has not been dissolved, maybe you can simply put the brakes on the transaction and treat as a drop down into single-member LLC's and continue to report on the S Corp return...(I have not considered any legal issues here, just shooting off ideas)...

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
You want the corporate-owned properties to be spun off in corporations. Those can be either real corporations or LLC's that check the box. Using LLC's would satisfy the existing decision, but that was probably taken only because they thought it was a better tax result (which it isn't if you're trying to do this).

The original corporation (let's call it A Corp.) contributes each property it owns to a newly-formed corporation (call then P1 corp. and P2 corp.), and then immediately distributes all of the P1 and P2 stock to A's stockholders pro rata. That's a D reorganization and described in sec. 355. No gain or loss is recognized, and P1 and P2 elect to be S corporations.

Are we sure that the individually titled properties are not owned by the corporation for tax purposes?

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
Thanks LH. The individually owned properties were on the S-corps books and depreciated in the corp. But before their transfer to LLC's they were titled individually per the county records.

When you say A spins to P1 and P2, can this be an LLC, and are you saying it can be an LLC, but they must elect to be taxed as a corporation?

In effect this is about what happened, that the property is now owned by the LLC which is owned in the same percentage as A corp. Can they just have minutes drawn up accordingly or do they need to elect something onthe tax return. All this is GREATLY appreciated.

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
I think there's some chance that the properties formally owned by the individuals are being held by them on behalf of the corporation (for tax purposes). But that's fact-intensive and I'll assume it's not the case.

The spun-off companies, P1 and P2, must be "corporations" for tax purposes. That can be done with an actual state-law corporation, or with an LLC (or ordinary partnership, trust, LLP, etc., etc.) that checks the box: as far as the IRS is concerned, they're all corporations and it doesn't matter which you use. There's likely to be little non-tax reason to care, either. If the plan was to put them in LLC's, it was probably anticipated that those would be taxed as partnerships (or disregarded if they ended up with single owners); that won't be possible if you what I'm suggesting.

Yes, you end up with the spun-off companies owned in the same proportions as the original A Corp. It is important to carry out all of the corporate steps -- forming the subsidiaries, formally transferring title, and distributing the stock in P1 and P2 to A's stockholders. I leave all questions about filings to you professionals.

FTF65 (talk|edits) said:

February 16, 2007
Since the S Corporation has already dropped the properties into LLC's, you would need to retroactively elect to treat the LLC's as corporations - if you make the election today, the farthest you can go back is 75 days. When did the S Corp contribute the assets to the LLC's?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 16, 2007
Whoa! You would not do that for the individually owned ones. Straight LLC is what you're after. The two that are owned by the corp must be made into new corps one way or another, and I don't know if creating an LLC taxed as a corp technically accomplishes the same thing or not. Call me suspicious...

Gosix (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
Shoot them all for getting themselves involved in a real estate LLC. These canned LLC's the lawyers put out are nothing more than a jail sentence from a minority member wanting out.

FTF65 (talk|edits) said:

February 16, 2007
JR- agreed, but the fact pattern is a little confusing: first HL says that "two were bought individually but shown on the S Corporation's books" but then a sentence later he says that "the 2 were titled individually right before the spin off" - so does this mean that the individuals originally acquired the properties or the S corp originally acquired the properties (based on LH's comment a few posts up, it appears he had the same question)?

If the answer is the former, how do you account for an S Corporation taking depreciation deductions for assets owned by individuals? Is there some kind of "deemed" contribution to the S Corporation (substance over form)? How did the assets get into the S corporation?

If the answer is the latter, this means that the S corp acquired the assets and the "spin off" was accomplished via a distribution to the shareholders who then contributed the properties to LLC's [under this structure I'm not sure there is any escape from Sec. 311(b)].

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
FTF, I think you're reading facts that aren't there. As I read it, there were 2 properties purchased by the corporation, which it wants to "spin off" (formally or not); there are 2 more which were purchased and always titled in individual names, but which the corporation has always shown on its books. I don't see that any have yet been distributed, though I think the ownership of the 2 that are individually titled is doubtful.

There is absolutely zero doubt that an LLC which checks the box is a "corporation" within the meaning of the Code. The IRS cannot fail to follow its own regs, no matter how much anyone here may dislike them

LH2004 (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2007
OK, FTF65, I reread the OP, and I'm not sure either exactly how the properties got into individual hands; maybe your reading is correct.

FTF65 (talk|edits) said:

February 17, 2007
LH - I too have zero doubt that an LLC that checks the box to be treated as a corporation is in fact a corporation (and I hope that nothing I've said gives you the impression that I think otherwise). In my opinion, the issue is one of timing. Let's assume that your read - two posts up - is correct. You stated that the S Corporation "wants" to spin off. The OP states that the spin-off has already happened (his first sentence says "it would have been nice to know this before they did it"). Therein lies the problem -- the S Corp. has already spun-off to an LLC that didn't elect to be treated as a corporation. If the LLC checks the box today, the earliest that it can be considered a corporation is 75 days ago. If the original spin-off occurred anytime before around December 2, 2006, checking the box on the LLC will create a corporation after the spin-off was already complete; accordingly, under that scenario, I don't think there is any benefit to checking the box.

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

20 February 2007
Thank you all for your input and help.I greatly appreciate it.

Everything about this is messy. You are assuming they realized that a corporation was a separate entity from themselves. 2 properties were bought personally and while being depreciated on the corporation, retained title by individuals. So that when they were deeded over to the new LLC's 2 were deeded from individuals and 2 were deeded from the S-corp.

I suppose I will have to assume that the 2 that were titled by indiv. were effectively contributed to the corp in the past. How else can I get it back from the corp after it had been depreciated on the corps books?

Based on your input, I will have to elect corp filing status for the 4 LLC's. I will have to have the operating S-corp pay the LLC's rent. Does and LLC taxed as a corp need to pay officer salaries? I believe so, although it can be minimal as they are just managing a rental.

Final question - Do the new LLC's depreciate as a new asset, using the net book value on the old corp, or do I just move over the entire accum depr and old basis in the new LLC/s-corp? Thanks

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 20, 2007
I thought I understood it the first time. No, I disagree about the two that are deeded individually. I would not consider them contributed to the corp. I would consider it an error. Legally, those are not corp properties, and I'd draw a hard line on this. Hook up with a local tax attorney as to how to proceed, but those can be out of the corp and just pick up the basis and acc. dep. on the new LLC instead, adjusting corp books for whatever you have to. I'm not clear what if anything should be reported to IRS or on that return in regard to this. That's why the tax attorney to lead. The two corp properties, yeah, you're stuck, must stay in corps.

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

21 February 2007
Thanks, The corp properties, would they depreciate new or based on old purch date and accum depr? I guess then only the 2 S-corps would have to pay a salary to the shareholders.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

February 21, 2007
If they're merely holding rental properties, no salary would be required. I don't know how the reorg works from taking them out of the existing corp to the new, but I'd lay big money that you continue with orig cost and accum. deprec. to date.

FTF65 (talk|edits) said:

February 22, 2007
Since I appear to be missing something, allow me to restate the facts as I understand them: (i) S Corp has 4 properties, each one holding a different business of the taxpayers; (ii) prior to the 2006 "LLC spin-off", 2 of the properties were titled in the name of the corporation and two were titled under the names of the two individual shareholders (but are recorded on the corporation's books); (iii) sometime during 2006, the 4 buildings were transferred ("spun-off") to LLC's and title was recorded in the name of each LLC (note: from a tax perspective, the corporation contributed assets to LLC's and distributed LLC interests out to shareholders or corporation distributes assets out to shareholders who, in turn, contribute assets to the LLC's); (iv) all 4 LLC's are owned 50/50 by the two individuals.

Some comments:

  1. Ownership of the two individually-titled properties: although title to the property is a key element, it is not the only factor in determining ownership for tax purposes - a "benefits and burdens" analysis might produce a different result depending on other facts (is the S corporation paying property taxes, mortgage, maintenance?, etc...);
  2. Because the individually-titled properties have been reflected on the S Corp tax returns, presumably you will have to record an M-2 adjustment ("Other Decrease") to get the assets (and related liabilities) off the returns without showing a distribution (or sale). Depending on the size of the adjustment, this could raise the audit flags;
  3. Corporate-titled properties: with respect to the 2006 "spin-off" to the LLC's, it appears that you have a couple of options (i) recognize a 311(b) gain on the distribution of the assets, or (ii) check the box on the LLC's to make them corporations in order to accomplish a 355 spin-off. If (ii) is applicable, this could work provided that you make the check-the-box election in a timely manner - you haven't indicated the dates of formation for the LLC's, so it's not clear if this is still possible [note: if (i) is applicable, checking-the-box on the LLC's makes no sense (you have already recognized the gain once, checking the box only puts the taxpayers right back in the same position)].
  4. As for depreciable basis with respect to a 355 spin off - assuming that you qualify for one - you would treat as carryover basis.

HLCPA (talk|edits) said:

1 March 2007
Thanks again for all your input, I GREATLY appreciate it. I have 2 last (hopefully) questions.

Now that I am getting into the numbers, I see that the mortgages against some of the properties are more than the net book cost (cost - accum depr) for 2 of the 4 properties.

  • One owned personally has cost 634,000 and loan 884,000
  • One owned by corp has cost 344,000 and loan 417,000
  • One owned by corp has cost 1,096,000 and loan 901,000
  • One owned personally has cost 1,416,000 and loan 1,279,000

I was able to get S-election for the two with the corp ownership.

My question is how I would book this on the old corp and on the new entities. Would I book the net between the cost and loans as "property distribution" or "shareholders contribution" depending on whether the loan was more or less than basis? Or some other way?

On the new entities, would I book the cost and accum depr as of transfer date,and loan payable, and make the balance members contribution for LLC's taxed as ptnship, or I dont know what on the LLC's taxed as S-corps? What would I put the net to? Thanks again.

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