Avoiding Taxes at Any Cost: The Economics of Tax-Deferred Real Estate Exchanges

Article

Abstract

This study examines the role tax-deferred exchanges play in the determination of reservation and transaction prices in U.S. commercial real estate markets. Taxpayers face significant time constraints when seeking to complete a delayed tax-deferred exchange. In a perfectly competitive market, a weakened bargaining position would not affect the transaction price. However, in illiquid, highly segmented commercial real estate markets, the exchanger may be required to pay a premium for the acquired property relative to its fair market value. Using a unique and rich dataset of commercial property transactions, we find that tax-motivated exchange buyers pay significantly more, on average, than non-exchange investors for their apartment and office properties, all else equal. Moreover, these average price premiums generally exceed the tax deferral benefits investors obtain by the use of a tax-deferred exchange. This result is robust to a number of alternative specifications. Thus, for many investors the pursuit of tax avoidance comes at a steep price.

Keywords

Commercial real estate Tax-deferred exchanges Transaction price 

References

  1. Arnold, M. A. (1999). Search, bargaining and optimal asking prices. Real Estate Economics, 27(3), 453–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Case, B., Clapp, J., Dubin, R., & Rodriguez, M. (2004). Modeling spatial and temporal house price patterns: A comparison of four models. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29(2), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clapp, J. (2003). A semiparametric method for valuing residential locations: Application to automated valuation. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 27(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J. (2006). Bargaining strength and property class in office markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Epple, D. (1987). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Estimating demand and supply functions for differentiated products. Journal of Political Economy, 95(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fickes, M. (2003). 1031 Exchanges do more than save taxes. National Real Estate Investor, January, 59–62.Google Scholar
  8. Fik, T., Ling, D., & Mulligan, G. F. (2003). Modeling spatial variation in housing prices: A variable interaction approach. Real Estate Economics, 31(4), 623–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forgey, F. A., Rutherford, R. C., & Springer, T. M. (1996). Search and liquidity in single family housing. Real Estate Economics, 24(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forgey, F. A., Rutherford, R. C., & VanBuskirk, M. L. (1994). Effects of foreclosure status on residential selling price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9(3), 313–318.Google Scholar
  11. Glower, M., Haurin, D., & Hendershott, P. H. (1998). Selling time and selling price: The influence of seller motivation. Real Estate Economics, 26(4), 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griliches, Z. (Ed.) (1971). Price indexes and quality change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Halvorsen, R., & Palmquist, R. (1980). The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economics Review, 70(3), 474–475.Google Scholar
  14. Hardin, W. G., III, & Wolverton, M. L. (1996). The relationship between foreclosure status and apartment price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(1), 101–109.Google Scholar
  15. Hardin, W. G., III, & Wolverton, M. L. (1999). Equity REIT property acquisitions: Do apartments REITs pay a premium? Journal of Real Estate Research, 17, 113–126.Google Scholar
  16. Harding, J. P., Knight, J. R., & Sirmans, C. F. (2003a). Estimating bargaining effects in hedonic models: Evidence from the housing market. Real Estate Economics, 31(4), 601–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harding, J. P., Rosenthal, S. S., & Sirmans, C. F. (2003b). Estimating bargaining power in the market for existing homes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haurin, D. (1988). The duration of marketing time of residential housing. Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, 16(4), 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes, A., & Slade, B. A. (2001). Do tax-deferred exchanges impact purchase price? Evidence from the phoenix apartment market. Real Estate Economics, 29(4), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Section 1001(c) (2006). Available via http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00001001----000-.html. Cited 26 June.
  21. Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, Section 1031 (2006) Available via http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00001031----000-.html. Cited 26 June 2006.
  22. Lambson, V., McQueen, G., & Slade, B. (2004). Do out-of-state buyers pay more for real estate? An examination of anchoring-induced bias and search costs. Real Estate Economics, 32(1), 85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBurney, C. M. (2004). Section 1031 exchanges: A legitimate tax shelter for business. Thompson FindLaw, May.Google Scholar
  24. McBurney, C. M., & Boshkov, S. (2003). Is an attribute of an intangible in a 1031 exchange a separate asset or inherent in an existing asset. Journal of Taxation, 98(1), 46–53.Google Scholar
  25. McLinden, S. (2004). 1031 Exchanges test the waters. National Real Estate Investor, June, 45–47.Google Scholar
  26. Miceli, T. J. (1989). The optimal duration of real estate listing contracts. Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, 17(3), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shilling, J., Benjamin, J., & Sirmans, C. F. (1990). Estimating net realizable value for distressed real estate. Journal of Real Estate Research, 5(1), 129–140.Google Scholar
  29. Starker vs. United States, 602 F. 2d 1341 (9th cir., 1979).Google Scholar
  30. Turnbull, G. K., & Sirmans, C. F. (1993). Information, search and house prices. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 23(4), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wayner, S. A. (2005a). 1031 exchanges defer tax bills and boost broker commissions. Real Estate Finance, February, 31–32.Google Scholar
  32. Wayner, S. A. (2005b). Section 1031 exchanges: Underused tax-planning tool. CPA Journal, June, 16–17.Google Scholar
  33. Weirick, W., & Ingram, F. (1990). Functional form choice in applied real estate analysis. Appraisal Journal, January, 57–73.Google Scholar
  34. Weller, L. S., & Halfacre, D. A. (2004). Section 1031 market continues to grow. Deloitte Tax LLP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, Warrington College of BusinessUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Finance, Whitman School of ManagementSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations