Biden's Proposes $500,000 Cap on Section 1031 Like-Kind Exchanges

Biden's Proposes $500,000 Cap on Section 1031 Like-Kind Exchanges

Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes

The Federation of Exchange Accommodators (FEA) yesterday issued the following comment in response to President Biden’s American Families Plan, which proposes capping Section 1031 like-kind exchanges at $500,000:

President Biden has released the details of his $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which includes a $500,000 cap on like-kind exchanges as a means to pay for the proposal. We now have a direct threat to Section 1031. According to the attached document released by the White House:

“The President would also end the special real estate tax break -- that allows real estate investors to defer taxation when they exchange property -- for gains greater than $500,000...”

FEA has been preparing for this threat for the past two years. We have built a strong defense with the 1031 real estate coalition, updated economic studies, multiple congressional fundraisers and numerous meetings with congressional staff. We will continue to fight to preserve Section 1031 in full as Congress considers the American Families Plan.

Following are some things you can do to help with Section 1031 advocacy efforts:

Send a letter to Congress: An UPDATED grassroots letter is available for you to send to your members of Congress urging them to preserve Section 1031. You can access the letter on the take action page of the 1031taxreform.com website: Tell Congress: Section 1031 Like-Kind Exchanges Matter (1031taxreform.com)

Talk with your contacts about preserving Section 1031. Below is a comment on President Biden's proposed cap that GAC co-chairs have given to members of the news media. Please feel free to utilize these comments as you talk with your own contacts about President Biden's proposal.

Comment from the FEA on President Biden's proposed $500,000 cap on Section 1031:

“The FEA opposes the Administration’s proposal to limit IRC Section 1031 like-kind exchange deferral to a maximum of $500,000 of gain, as a means to pay for the American Families Plan. We view this proposal, which would effectively eliminate commercial real estate exchanges, as well as larger farm and ranch exchanges, as a misguided view of the actual purpose and benefits of like-kind exchanges.

“Section 1031 encourages real estate transactional activity, and in doing so, is a powerful stimulator of the U.S. economy. Section 1031 is not an unfair or abusive loophole. It is broadly used by taxpayers ranging from middle class individuals exchanging rental houses and small apartment buildings, farmers, and small to mid-sized businesses, to larger taxpayers exchanging large commercial properties in major metropolitan areas.

“Smaller exchanges create a stable inventory of decent, affordable housing for working families. Section 1031 encourages turnover and investment of fresh capital in these properties, improving neighborhoods and providing decent places to live. Studies have shown that 1031 buyers invest significantly more capital in replacement properties than do non-1031 buyers.

“Higher valued commercial real estate exchanges are an important source of jobs for contractors, skilled and unskilled blue-collar workers, lenders, real estate brokers, Qualified Intermediaries, title insurers, escrow companies, surveyors, appraisers, architects, landscapers, building material suppliers and more. The income earned generates tax revenue and consumer spending, furthering the economic impact.

“Recent research by EY has estimated that like-kind exchanges are expected to generate 568,000 jobs this year, including $27.5 billion of labor income and a total of $55.3 billion of value added to the US economy. The economic impact of like-kind exchanges in their present form is a far better “pay-for” than eliminating this powerful stimulus.”

15Reply
133 views

Most Popular Reply

New to Real Estate · Longview, TX · Member since 2021 · 1 post · 11 votes
5y

All of you who are comfortable with this since it won’t apply to you need to understand how the government chips away at things. The hardest step is getting the cap in place. Then, every so often they will lower it as they need to generate more revenue. This is a slippery slope that can have much greater long term implications than just $500k. 

See this reply in the discussion

45 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Marin County California · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    To give you a small taste, our $1.75 offer on a $1.35 list was just blown away earlier this week.  Rumor is that it sold for $2M.  So, yes, we are in this space on many, many transactions.  My point though was broader.  If you figure depreciation recapture into the basis of an investment property, it would seem that the $500K limit would apply to a much greater number of transactions.  It's not clear to me that the statute will prrmit use of the purchase price as the basis for heavily depreciated investment properties.  

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y

    @Darius Ogloza the step transaction doctrine would not be applied to any assets being sold to different parties at different times. Even if you're structuring a single sale in phases... we have had many transactions sold over phases, over a number of years with a genuine reason and that is okay. For example, we might have a farmer that sells land to different buyers over a series of transactions. And it's not uncommon to have tenancy in common buyers & sellers coming in and out of transactions.. so many times we will have a TIC sell in pieces. But you are completely correct that this proposed cap will affect so many more transactions than people are anticipating!

    @Eric Bilderback section 1031 has been around for 100 years... I think it outdates the Kennedy fortune just a little bit. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y

    @Celia Moore

    You do?  The Kennedy’s were already rich when they were bootlegging during prohibition.  Or do you disagree?  I recall in one of my boring accounting classes the professor lecturing about some of the big time families that have used the 1031 to create generational mega wealth.


    it doesn’t matter either but it’s interesting I think.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y

    @Jonathan Stone exactly what I am afraid of. 

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y

    @Steve Vaughan it is good to be able to negotiate and converse these things. The real question is... will it pass?

  • Member since 2020 · 36 posts · 13 votes
    5y

    If this passes, could the biggest beneficiary might be agents in the long run. More people will move out of properties early, before their gain goes over $500k so potentially more transactions than before yes? Or do you maintain original basis after 1031 therefore running out of “runway” in the next transaction..

  • Investor · Detroit, MI · Member since 2014 · 97 posts · 40 votes
    5y

    Well the problem is many homeowners among the Silent and Baby Boom generations purchased their properties decades ago, when prices were “reflecting a different economic. Today’s housing market is defined by strong demand driven mainly by millennials and low interest rates and low supply as a result of decades of under-building. Home prices are rising at a record pace consequently, increasing the likelihood that a homeowner who bought their home years ago could see significant capital gains should they sell under the new proposal. 

  • Real Estate Broker · Edmonds, WA · Member since 2020 · 54 posts · 32 votes
    5y

    If this actually goes through, it will kill the Commercial Market. As an agent and investor in commercial I am very interested to see what the unintended consequences of price and market will be on this for the retail and office sectors. 

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Celia Moore:

    @Sean Ross great comment! They way we look at it is, you're just going to end up having a bunch of big sales compressed into little sales over a series of transactions... it will be very interesting to see what happens. This is something totally different than anything they have said in the past, and if they are looking at a $500,000 exclusion on gain in a single transaction, you can imagine that we are now going to have a whole bunch of micro-closings any time a large asset sells in order to satisfy the cap. 

    The $500k number is also interesting because if you look at the universal exclusion for a married couple, it's also at $500k. In 1997 that meant something... today that means nothing.  

    A $500k exemption means nothing lol? Im in the 4th and 5th most expensive markets in the country, and I certainly think it means something.

  • New to Real Estate · Longview, TX · Member since 2021 · 1 post · 11 votes
    5y

    All of you who are comfortable with this since it won’t apply to you need to understand how the government chips away at things. The hardest step is getting the cap in place. Then, every so often they will lower it as they need to generate more revenue. This is a slippery slope that can have much greater long term implications than just $500k. 

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Jim Berns:

    All of you who are comfortable with this since it won’t apply to you need to understand how the government chips away at things. The hardest step is getting the cap in place. Then, every so often they will lower it as they need to generate more revenue. This is a slippery slope that can have much greater long term implications than just $500k. 

    I couldn't agree more. Anyone comfortable with this because "it won't affect them"... is totally clueless. How many times do we have to waste time & money to pay for the people who are not seeing the big picture? 

  • Klamath Falls, OR · Member since 2011 · 1 post · 2 votes
    5y

    What seems to me to be overlooked is whether this is likely to get to Biden's desk at all. There are many powerful ppl, organizations, corporations, and 'political doners' that will be greatly effected by this change.

    My guess is that - as a 'straight-up Bill - it will be buried by one power broker or another. BUT, watch for it to return in 'small print' hidden in a non-related Bill, or an Omnibus Bill, or the like, and WILL INCLUDE some provision that will effectively insulate the 'elites' from the effects of it, while taxing those of us who have been designated as 'undeservedly too wealthy' (which will become a synonym for being greedy, dishonest, & racist).

    Once there, his 'handlers' will decide.

  • Member since 2021 · 16 posts · 10 votes
    5y

    I think it depends on your market. There are definitely ordinary people in some areas that could have significant gains due to crazy appreciation. Also, I think a cap could be bad because if we did have significant inflation, it may not just affect "the rich."

  • Queen Creek, AZ · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y

    I see this as pushing investment into lower priced assets. Why buy one apartment building that you can't 1031 when you can buy 10 SFRs that you can trade over time and stay under the rule? Instead of moving from 10 SFRs to one 20 unit apartment there will be an incentive to just keep adding more SFR's, 1031 one and buy two more.

    Over time this could create in incentive for developers to build smaller buildings, think of a garden apartment that gets built as ten 4 unit buildings instead of one 40 unit building.

    On the flip side people will be holding their large MFRs longer, essentially locked in.  As depreciation is taken and appreciation occurs investors will be less and less likely to sell their property.  or they will find a way to sell fractional interests over time.

    For investors with higher priced SFRs that exceed the 500k limit I see a lot of people "moving" into those rentals for two years and selling them as their primaries.  I know where we used to live in CA was houses were going for 350k and not list for 2.5M.  Nobody is going to want to pay tax on that so I suspect that this will tilt the scales from appreciation to cash flow for some investors.

  • Member since 2021 · 3 posts · 1 vote
    5y

    CA should have a separate limit. Otherwise it might be a circus of many, frequent  artificial transactions.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y

    I truly cannot fathom how anyone involved with real estate can see anything but problems with the current tax proposals. Whether speaking of the $500k cap on 1031, almost doubling of the top Capital Gains tax rate, elimination of the Stepped Up Basis, Gifting Tax changes or the Mark to Market on simple distributions from an LLC (just to name a few) it's all bad for the middle class and anyone with real estate!

    The biggest problem I currently see is that no one is talking about much beyond the 1031 issue and Stepped up Basis. Consider the fact the increased tax rates are RETROACTIVE TO APRIL 2021! (In proposal at time of this writing) This issue alone is potentially devesatating to anyone that is trying to plan ahead by selling before changes occur! ANYONE selling today to realize gain is truly rolling the dice...

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2020 · 97 posts · 109 votes
    5y

    @Anil Gathala completely agree. 

  • Investor · Minnesota & Kansas · Member since 2020 · 176 posts · 75 votes
    5y

    Lots of great info here! thank you guys!!

  • Rental Property Investor · Tysons, VA · Member since 2015 · 73 posts · 45 votes
    5y

    This will be a big problem. Instead of selling, the landlord could just hold on forever. Why pay tax on gain plus the depreciation? It will be less transaction for sure.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.