[WSBARP] REET Question/Exemption

Wed Dec 28 21:37:34 PST 2022

And now, the contra position.... ;-)

It is my understanding that the DOR takes a very broad view of the issue.
If they audit the transaction, they will ask for proof that all payments on
the debt were made by Borrower. If in that audit the DOR learns that Ex in
fact paid one half of all payments, I am afraid it will conclude that Ex
was de facto liable for half the debt. So relieving Ex of that debt is
subject to the excise tax.

Furthermore, I don't see any "gift" here. So I don't think the Supp
Statement is appropriate.

I think the answer is found in WAC 458-61A-204 regarding TICs:
(5) The sale of an interest in real property from one or more joint tenants
or tenants in common to remaining tenants or to a third party is a taxable
transaction. The taxable amount of the sale is the total of the following:
(a) Any consideration given; and
(b) Any consideration promised to be given, including the amount of any
debt remaining unpaid on the property at the time of sale multiplied by
that fraction of interest in the real property being sold.

The regulation does not differentiate liability vs. non-liability on the
existing debt. So unfortunately I think excise tax is due on one half the
existing debt, as well as the cash paid for the equity. If that amount is
less than one half the assessed value (the presumed "gross selling price")
then the difference is the amount that is exempt from the tax.

I hope all of you are enjoying the Holidays!!!

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
<https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000029240>
92 Lenora St. #103, Seattle WA  98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949
On the blog: Co-Ownership of Real Property by Single People
<https://www.fsbolawyers.org/blog/tenants-in-common-agreement>
<https://seattlepropertylawyer.com/>    <https://www.fsbolawyers.org/>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:39 PM Mark Anderson <marka at mbaesq.com> wrote:

> Just some thoughts on this – please don’t judge me too harshly.  (insert
> smiley face).
>
>
>
> I suppose you could characterize at least part (if not all) of the payment
> from the Borrower to the Ex as a repayment of the amounts that Ex has
> transferred to Borrower over the years.  You say there is nothing in
> writing that ever created an indebtedness between Borrower and Ex.  On its
> face, then, this just looks like "moving money around" between Borrower and
> Ex (especially if they ever had a joint bank account and they are just
> splitting up joint assets).  If this amount (the "Repayment”) is less than
> 50% of the equity, the amount of the Repayment could be characterized as a
> gift and the difference between the Repayment and 50% of the equity would
> be the amount that is subject to excise tax.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, because Ex did not become indebted on the note, there is no
> debt to be relieved of.  Thus, there would be no excise tax due on any debt
> transferred.  Although none of the checkboxes on the Real Estate Excise Tax
> Supplemental Statement appear to be on point, the one that is the closest
> is A.2.  It would read
>
>
>
> "Grantee (buyer) will make payments on *0%* of total debt of *$0.00* for
> which grantor (seller) is liable and pay grantor (seller) ($______ )."
>
>
>
>
> *Mark B. Anderson *ANDERSON LAW FIRM PLLC
> 821 Dock St  Ste 209  PMB 4-12
> Tacoma, Washington 98402
> +1 253-327-1750
> +1 253-327-1751 (fax)
> marka at mbaesq.com
> www.mbaesq.com
>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *This transmission is confidential and is
> intended solely for the use of the individual named recipient. It may be
> protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other
> confidentiality protection. If you are not the intended recipient, or the
> person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, be advised that
> any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately notify the sender via e-mail or by telephone at (253) 327-1750
> that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> *On Behalf Of *samuel at meylerlegal.com
> *Sent:* 12/27/2022 3:47 PM
> *To:* 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>;
> wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] REET Question/Exemption
>
>
>
> Listmates,
>
>
>
> Co-habitants go on title of property together but only one of them
> (“Borrower”) is liable on the note due to the lender.  Borrower makes
> payments on the loan directly while the other co-habitant (“Ex”) makes
> payments to the Borrower for half of the loan payment.  There is nothing in
> writing expressly stating that Ex is indebted to Borrower for 50% of the
> mortgage payment, but that is essentially what Ex pays to borrower for
> several years.
>
>
>
> Borrower and Ex call it quits and wish to remove Ex from title.  There is
> some equity in the property now.  Borrower is willing to pay Ex 50% of the
> equity value and excise tax would be due on that amount.  I am questioning
> whether excise tax should also be due on 50% of the underlying debt given
> that the Ex was never personally liable on the note due to the bank.  It
> could appear to someone as though Ex was liable to Borrower for half the
> mortgage and has now been relieved of that liability.
>
>
>
> Have you dealt with this before?  Would excise tax only be due on the
> value of the equity that Borrower pays Ex for?  What exemptions apply?
> Thanks for the input.
>
>
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
> *Samuel M. Meyler*
>
> *Meyler Legal, PLLC *
>
> 1700 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 200
>
> Seattle, Washington 98109
>
> *Tel:*  206.876.7770
>
> *Fax:*  206.876.7771
>
> *Email:*  samuel at meylerlegal.com
>
>
>
> *NOTICE:*
>
>
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be Confidential or
> Privileged and constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning
> of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC 2510. The information
> is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
> sender and delete the copy you received together with any attachments.
> Thank you.
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not
> restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing
> attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and
> others.***
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20221228/772afc82/attachment.html>