1031 Exchange Language For Purchase Agreement

“The seller intends to transfer the above-mentioned property in accordance with Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, which sets out the requirements for tax-deferred real estate exchanges. The seller`s rights and obligations arising from these and future agreements will be transferred to the Iowa Equity Exchange, a qualified intermediary, for the purpose of arrering an exchange. The buyer of the above property agrees to cooperate with the seller and the Iowa Equity Exchange in a manner necessary to allow the seller to complete this exchange. This cooperation takes place at no additional cost or liability to the buyer. What language should be added to the treaty in the context of a 1031 exchange? The following language is satisfactory in determining the interchange`s intention to make a tax exchange and frees the other parties from the costs or commitments resulting from the exchange: when it comes to real estate investments, the Internal Revenue Code requires a specific language in the purchase and sale contracts that define an investor`s intention to make an exchange. This language specifies that an investor intends to sell his investment property and acquire another property for investment purposes. For such an exchange to take place, the treaty must express its intention. This is necessary for the exchange to qualify for the IRS. This term not only justifies the investor`s intent, but also allows companies like Exchange Resource to connect to purchase and sale contracts.

The reason is simple – in an exchange, the interchange must cede the sale contract to the intermediary in order for the exchange to continue. If there is a ban on attribution and it is not covered by the treaty, it is not possible to exchange. What if you`ve already signed such a limited contract? As long as both parties agree, an exchange is still possible using an endorsement in which the parties agree to authorize the contracts. On the contrary, if a customer has already sold his abandoned property and entered into an exchange, there may be a loss of bargaining power if he proposes to buy a replacement property. Suppose the interchange has already formally identified three properties that could serve as a substitute. For whatever reason, two of them are no longer available. (Perhaps they were sold to another party, or the seller removed them from the market, you had a fire, etc.) Now the interchange has only one asset that it can buy to complete its exchange.

Comments are closed.