Intent to Hold for Investment: 12-Year Holding Period

Intent To Hold For Investment: 12-Year Holding Period

Lessons From Allen v. United States

Is a 12-year holding period long enough for property to be considered to be “held for investment?" At first blush, a holding period longer than a decade might seem sufficient. However, as shown in Allen v. U.S. 113 aff’d2. d 2014-2262 (2014), the intent of the taxpayer is more important than the length of the holding period.  In Allen, the taxpayer admitted that he originally acquired the property to develop it and resell it.  He argued that, over the course of time, he changed his mind and decided not to develop the property, but continued to hold it “for investment” until he could sell it. 

Whether a taxpayer intends to hold a property for resale, or to hold for investment, it can be a critical issue if an exchange is challenged by the IRS.  Proving such intent can be difficult.  A taxpayer’s intent in holding a property is a question of fact.  See Austin v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d 460, 461 (1959).  Courts take into account a number of factors to determine if property was held for sale or for investment. See Asset Preservation’s article entitled  “Property Held for Sale: Factors the IRS May Examine.”

In Allen, the court found that the taxpayer originally acquired the property for development and resale, and that the taxpayer failed to adequately prove that he changed his intent to “holding the property for investment.”  In deciding the case in favor of the IRS, the Tax Court found the following evidence persuasive:

• Allen purchased the property in 1987, and from 1987 to 1995 Allen attempted to develop the property on his own;
• Allen admitted he initially intended to develop the property on his own, and then searched for partners to help develop the property;
• From 1995 to 1999 Allen brought in partners who contributed capital for development;
• In 1999, Allen sold the property to a developer;
• Allen made significant and extensive efforts to develop the property over many years and failed to substantiate when his actions changed with regard to the property;
• Ultimately, Allen failed to provide any evidence to prove that his intent changed during the time of his ownership of the property.

Although the intent with respect to a property can change over time, the intent during the period prior to the sale is critical.  See Tibbals v. United States, 362 F.2d 266, 273 (1966). The Court determined in Allen that the taxpayer failed to show when, how, or why his intent changed.

The Allen case demonstrates the need for solid evidence, documentation and establishing clear facts and circumstances whenever a taxpayer asserts that their intent with regard to an exchange property changed from “intent to sell” to “intent to hold for investment.” In the event of an audit, the IRS and state tax authorities will require objective evidence supporting the taxpayer’s assertion of their change of intent to one compatible with Section 1031. Every taxpayer should make significant and meaningful efforts to document and collect evidence to establish such change in intent.

Congress Threatens To Eliminate 1031 Exchanges

Without the tax-deferral benefit that 1031 exchanges provide, small and medium sized businesses would not be as equipped to reinvest in their businesses, real estate values would decline, the U.S. economy would suffer, and businesses of all sizes would lose the opportunity to expand. The repeal of Section 1031 will cause a decline in real estate values as investors will be motivated to hold on to properties and to invest in more liquid, non-real estate investments with faster returns. The proposals effectively impose punitive and targeted tax increases on economically sound commercial real estate investment, the likely unintended consequence of which will be similar to implementation of 1986 tax reform modifications that resulted in a recession.

Tak Action Now!
Send a strong message to congress that 1031 exchanges are a powerful economic tool. Learn more and voice your opposition to these proposals with these critical actions at www.1031taxreform.com.

1031 Basics: Where Like-Kind Property Is Located

Court Determines Tax Memo Not Protected By Attorney-Client Privilege
And Work Product Doctrine

The Southern District of New York, in Schaeffler v. United States, recently denied a petition to quash an IRS summons for a tax memorandum prepared by the petitioner’s accounting firm in connection with a complex refinancing and corporate restructuring on the part of the Schaeffler Group, determining that the tax memorandum was not protected by the work product doctrine. Read More…

IRS Social Media Tools

The Effect Of Proposed Carried Interest Legislation On Development Projects

Under existing law, no tax is imposed on the receipt of a partnership interest unless the receiving partner obtains an interest in the partnership that includes a share in the value of its assets, as well as, its income from operations. Then, when partnership assets are sold, the income is taxed to such partners as capital gain at a rate that does not exceed 20 percent under existing law rather than the higher rates imposed on income from services that can reach 39.6 percent. This has enabled smart tax lawyers to structure partnerships that enable all of the partners, including the managers, to acquire, own, operate and sell assets where the income is generated is taxed at the more favorable rates imposed on long term capital gains. Read More…

America’s Fastest-Growing Small Cities

1031 Exchange Resources