<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p>I was only intending to apply it by analogy, but thinking it
through in my second email, the relocation company on a relocation
sale is not connected to the buyer, so I think that is the
distinction. They simply are not a nominee of the buyer in any
sense of the term, so they probably always pay excise tax twice.<br>
</p>
<p>Looking at Flyhome's website they have two different programs,
but the details of the programs are not provided and the FAQ page
seems to conflict with this page. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.flyhomes.com/buy">https://www.flyhomes.com/buy</a>
But as that linked page describes their "Guaranteed Offer" program
it seemingly would make them nominees in the traditional sense
(subject to meeting all DOR's qualifications--with funds coming
from the nominee being an issue as discussed by others) . The
"Cash Offer" program doesn't have enough details as to structure
understand it sufficiently. <br>
</p>
<p>Rather than excise tax I'm wondering how they're dealing with
appraisal issues, particularly on their "cash offer" program as
described which requires a later loan. In this crazy market many
houses are going for more than 10% of list price and thus
appraising can be an issue absent additional buyer funds.
Although on the other hand it's probably not a problem with houses
appreciating 10% in value ever 30 days. ;-)<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Kary L. Krismer
206 723-2148</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/10/2021 4:12 PM, Dwight Bickel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN8PR14MB2980DA7A1A3B09BEDE0166AFBF909@BN8PR14MB2980.namprd14.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Kary, the
relocation example is not related to the FlyHomes example.
It seems we have started our own thread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The DOR
has been consistent that the second step, from Relocation
Company to unrelated Purchaser, is not exempt as a nominee
exception. The DOR won’t allow the exemption even where the
Relo Co takes a signed deed from Seller, with a blank
grantee, then the Relo Co fills in the grantee “as agent.”
While I could argue with the DOR, I learned several decades
ago that is not productive.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>