Real Estate in an S Corporation?

I came across this awhile ago - people taking title to real estate in the name of an S Corporation, and then trying to get around the “due on sale” clause at a later date by simply transferring the shares of the S Corporation to a new owner. It’s the same game as the Land Trust - where the property title stays static, while the property owners change behind the scenes.
But in this case, my first thought was “Why would you want to compromise your asset protection strategy?”
With the exception of Nevada, no other state provides Charging Order protection over S Corporation shares. So if you wind up on the losing end of a lawsuit and can’t pay the damages, your shares in that S Corp are up for grabs to your creditors … meaning everything IN your S Corp is fair game as well. That doesn’t happen with LLCs and LPs (at least not in most states). Your LLC/LP interests are not readily available - if they are at all. Even in states that don’t have a legal prohibition against seizing LLC/LP interests, there is still a lengthy court procedure to go through before a creditor can foreclose on those interests.
The funny thing was, the person telling me about this idea (who was quite in favor of it btw) was a CPA. Yet I have always thought that there were negative tax consequences, even in an S Corporation, where appreciating real estate was involved. With an S Corp, the taxation is flow-through, but there’s also an implication that close to half of the income will come out through payment of a salary - with it’s associated payroll taxes. Under an LLC/LP, as long as the income is truly passive in nature it will be taxed that way - meaning no payroll taxes.
At the end of the day I just don’t see how the pros of this “solution” outweigh the cons. If anyone’s got some insights, let’s have them!
Trackback URL for this post:
- Megan Hughes's blog
- Sign in to post comments
- Email this page
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Technorati
Megan, I’m equally baffled. It results in paying more tax and having less protection.
Also, if the original S-corp owners personally guaranteed the real estate loan, which is common, are they still on the hook after they sell their S-corp shares? That could present some interesting scenarios.
But getting back to the S-corp asset protection, would the original owners be better off to have the S-corp shares owned by an LLC instead of owning them personally? That’s assuming they decided not to have an LLC taxed as an S.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Hi Penny,
LLC’s can’t own S Corp shares - that’s one of the quirky things about S Corps. Ownership is restricted to natural people (or qualified trusts) who are both resident in the U.S. and filing U.S. tax returns. LLCs and Corporations can’t own S Corpshares for that reason.
Diane made a great comment over in the forum (which is now open to everyone!). There were some additional tax considerations that made the S Corp strategy a little more palatable. You can read her entire post here: http://www.taxloopholes.com/connect/forum/first-class-lounge-tax-loophol/real-estate-s-corporation#comment-193.
I’m with you on the debt. Presumably the new owners of hte S Corp shares would also sign an indemnification agreement so that if the original owner ever got nailed and had to repay the loan he/she would have a right of action against the new owners. But really — if there’s no money, it’s just a piece of paper.