Rons Full Price Offer

How and why we can offer full or near full price for your Home!

What we can do.

We offer a program for buyers and sellers whereby home sellers who need to sell their home and are

willing to keep their equity in place for a few years may do so in a safe and secure way using a Net

Residential Lease in conjunction with a Title-holding Land Trust for greatest protection, while a ready

willing and able buyer who may not quite qualify for a standard bank loan leases the property for a time

until they have established a sufficient payment and credit history suitable for qualifying for a home loan,

thereby paying off the underlying mortgage/s, sellers equity and associated cost thereby terminating the

lease and all associated agreements. In this arrangement my associates and I remain as the guarantor

of monthly payments in the arrangement while the lessee is in the property as well as handling marketing

and showing the home to a new prospective resident buyer/lessee if the need arises.

The following is a list of various options available for use when attempting the transfer of

ownership of realty.

 

A Straight Lease

A rental for a specific period of time. Generally incurs a negative cash-flow along with

unrecoverable costs of management, maintenance and vacancies. No chance for elevated income.

 

A Lease/Option

A unilateral agreement to sell with bargain terms at a future date. So what's wrong with an L/O?

They've been done for years. The L/O violates a lender's due-on-sale admonitions. A L/O can (if

an option fee is taken or rent credits are given) lead to an inability to evict a defaulting tenant.

Such a tenant in default can claim having "Equity" in the property, and in so doing, force a

judicial foreclosure process versus an eviction. This can afford him/her months of free rent while

the litigation rages on. As well, terms can be changed on a whim relative to buy-out provisions,

repairs, equity credits (rent credits), etc.: all requiring extensive, expensive, legal action to

rectify.

This alternative s often used where the person on Title has a large equity position and feels this may

be the way to protect his or her interest.

 

Contract for Deed

The CFD is essentially a "Lay Away Plan." The property's legal title is relinquished to the

vendee (buyer) only after all debt has been paid off: i.e., there is no legal ownership of the

property until it's completely paid for.

And the problems are...? The CFD is a direct violation of a lender's due-on-sale clause; there is

no means for eviction; the vendee (resident/buyer) holds an "equitable" interest in the property,

allowing only for foreclosure ejection quiet title in the event of a breach of contract in lieu of

eviction. Further, any parties' creditor liens, lawsuits, judgments, marital dispute litigation and

tax liens attach to the property... and the death of any party throws the property into probate.

Lastly, the laws in some states have changed placing many onerous burdens.

 

Wrap Loan

In a "Wrap-Around Loan" a seller creates a mortgage loan that is equal to or greater than the

current loans on the property. Then from the buyer's single monthly payment to the seller the

underlying junior loan payments are made (usually leaving a positive cash flow for the seller).

So, what's wrong with that? Well, a Wrap violates the lenders' due-on-sale clause; there is no

means for eviction in the event of default; the resident/buyer holds an "equitable" interest,

necessitating foreclosure, ejection quiet title actions in lieu of eviction; any parties' creditor liens,

lawsuits, judgments and tax liens attach to the property; and the death of any party throws the

entire property into probate.

 

“Subject To” Deals

    This is an assumption of mortgage payments subject to a loan's existing terms.

And the problem...? "Subject-To" is basically a generic term that can be applied to any of the

above: and like the above, a Subject To violates the lender's due-on-sale clause; obstructs (stops)

one's right of eviction of an errant tenant/buyer; it conveys Equity; it jeopardizes title; it invites

disastrous disagreement and litigation between parties. And ... any party's business, personal and

legal actions attach to the property: thereby seriously negatively affecting the interests of the

other party/ies.

 

Conveyance by Title-Holding Land Trust

The NARS Equity Holding Land Trust Transfer System NEHTrust™

Remember that TV ad of a few years back? The one where a guy eating a chocolate bar rounds a blind

corner and smacks into a lady munching a peanut butter sandwich? And Voila the Reese's Peanut Butter

Cup is born? Well, something similar has happened within the world of creative real estate. Grossly

underrated, and all too frequently misunderstood, the Title-holding Land Trust has collided with the "Net

Residential Lease," with some astounding results. Both devices-the Land Trust and the Net Lease-have

been around for centuries; but only a select few professionals know beans about trusts in general; and

even fewer have the slightest idea of what a land trust is. Talk to 100 attorneys and you might find one

with a clue as to what happens when an Assignment of Beneficiary Interest in a title-holding trust is

structured in tandem with a Net Lease (i.e., a Lease wherein the Lessee pays all costs of possession).

Despite an almost universal ignorance of land trusts, the fact remains that anyone residing in, and making

payments on, a property owned by a revocable, beneficiary directed, inter-vivos ["Illinois-type"] titleholding

land trust (phew!), need only be made a co-beneficiary in it, in order to reap the myriad benefits

of homeownership. For the resident beneficiary, this trust/lease arrangement actually provides pride of

ownership, use, occupancy, equity build-up, appreciation and income tax write-off [Belden, 70 TCM 274,

Dec. 50,802(M) re. IRC Reg. ?1.163-1(b); IRC 163 (h)4(D); Rev. Rul. 92-0105, etc.]

 

Virtually none of the downsides, but all of the benefits and protections of Seller-Assisted-

Financing. A seller's property is vested with a 3rd party trustee. Income tax benefits can then be

conveyed to a tenant. No party can act independently of the other. No party can jeopardize title

(accidentally or on purpose). The property is shielded from public view, and is well insulated

from lawsuit, creditor judgments, tax liens; bankruptcy, marital dispute and probate on behalf of

either (any) party to the arrangement. Simple eviction rights are preserved ... and the lenders'

"due-on-sale" clause is not violated or compromised. See (More on the "Due-on-Sale Clause,").

Problems? As is common with ANY financing method, an EHT tenant/buyer could default in its

payment or management obligations under the agreement, thereby requiring disposition by

simple eviction action, or imposition of penalties and/or sanctions. The property could lose value

over the term of the agreement, necessitating a future sale at a loss or an extension of the

agreement.

 

The Equity Holding TrustTM System

The Title-Holding Land Trust (often referred to as the "Illinois Land Trust") is accepted in

form, substance and enforceability, throughout the U.S. This all too-often overlooked trust

form is slowly but surely becoming recognized as arguably the best possible means of real

property asset protection relative to legal threats to one's "ownership" and/or transfer of

real estate.

The land trust is considered unique in that a property's legal and equitable titles are vested

in the trustee, rather than in the owner of record. The land trust's beneficiaries remain fully

in control of the property and the actions of the trustee. As a result of this beneficiarydirected

third-party trusteeship, any property so held is effectively hidden from public view,

and shielded from legal actions by lawyers and creditors.

As a matter of fact, when there are multiple (unrelated) beneficiaries in the trust, the

property and its title become virtually impervious to tax liens, creditor judgments, lawsuits

and charging orders. In short, the message is that creditors, including the IRS, simply

cannot reach a property in a co-beneficiary land trust.

Our land trust-based transfer system, the NEHTrustTM, is designed to replace the need for

all the risky, and often even illicit, seller-carry financing schemes that abound today. The

Equity Holding Trust SystemTM by North American Realty is a meticulous, straight forward

process of documentation that incorporates, along with the land trust: 1) an Assignment of

Beneficiary Interest, 2) a Beneficiary Agreement (analogous to a partnership agreement) and

3) an Occupancy Agreement (i.e., a tenancy agreement whereby a co-beneficiary 'leases'

from the trust, versus holding a title interest in the property), and 4) a Power of Attorney

from a non-participating beneficiary to the party handling the management of the property.

When combined, these documents effectively afford a would-be buyer all the benefits of

homeownership, including income tax deductions ... without the necessity of a transfer of

title ownership. The EHT system effectively protects the "seller", as well as the second

and/or third beneficiary (investor and/or resident beneficiaries) from any untoward personal

or legal action by or against the other parties.

 A unique feature of the land trust is that it converts the settlor's ownership of realty (real

estate) to ownership of personalty (i.e., ownership of the trust, rather than of the property

held by it). Therefore, since personalty is not deemed subject to partition by judgment

creditors, unrelated parties holding property in this manner needn't fear the property ever

becoming the subject of: a creditor judgment, lien or charging order. Neither would the

property be the subject of a tax lien, any party's bankruptcy, marital dissolution or probate

.... a most comforting feeling when carrying a mortgage for someone else.

Overall, the EHT gives a relinquishing party - willing to keep its existing financing in place -

a quick, easy and safe method of disposing of the property, while simultaneously providing

the acquiring party/ies with virtually 100% of all the benefits of ownership. The acquiring

party's benefits include full mortgage interest and property tax deductions, and all the other

incidents of real estate ownership. And, also, an EHT buyer needn't qualify for a new loan or

make a standard "down payment," since all qualification rules and parameters are solely at

the discretion of the relinquishing party ("the seller").

In so much as a property vested in a land trust has not been "sold," but instead merely (from

any inquiring party's point of view) vested in an inter vivos (living) trust and leased to a

successor beneficiary of the same trust ... there is no overt violation of the lender's due-onsale

(alienation) admonitions. As well, the EHT very effectively provides any would-be "seller"

an excellent means of avoiding immediate capital gains taxation, and/or the unpleasantness

of seller:carry schemes; an untimely or under-market sale; a short-sale (offer:andcompromise)

; foreclosure; or ... being forced to deal with tenants toilets and trash

(maintenance costs) and negative cash flow. Also a state's withholding tax can be avoided if

the trustee is a corporation (e.g., re. the sale of a personal residence in Ca.).

Currently authorized and protected under usage regulations in all states, the land trust is

either-specifically permitted, or not prohibited under any state's Statute of Uses. However,

the merits of the land trust are somewhat diminished in two states - Louisiana and

Tennessee. This is due to those states' non-acceptance of the Uniform Doctrine of Equitable

Conversion, which doctrine does prevail in all other jurisdictions. This is to say that, in

those two states a beneficiary interest in a land trust is ownership of realty versus

personalty, despite an owner's relinquishment of the property's full ownership benefits to

another, while still retaining full control and management. However, even in Tn. and La., the

privacy and ease of transfer benefits do remain.

In states where no specific relevant land trust legislation exists (i.e., where there is no "Land

Trust Act" per se), the land trust is supported by a reliance on legal precedents established

locally and in other states. This is to say that a court's finding in, say, Minnesota, would

have to rely largely upon precedent case-findings in other states where land trusts are

specifically authorized by precedent or statute, as in: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.

A prime motivation for forming a simple land trust (i.e., one beneficiary only, and without

the additional documents that comprise the EHT) are the benefits of privacy and anonymity

of ownership. In other words, when a property's title is vested in a land trust trustee, a very

effective and protective legal shield is formed, making it virtually impossible for any

inquiring party to determine who the trust's beneficiaries are. This is due to the fact that the

trust agreement is never placed into the public record. In fact, the deed transferring

ownership to the trustee is all that is ever recorded. The trust itself never becomes a matter

of public record. Furthermore, following the recording of the deed, the land trust trustee is

specifically prohibited from releasing any information to any inquiring party under any

circumstances (absent a court order). Information regarding the trust's management and/or

the identities of its beneficiaries, including local, state and federal governments, remains

wholly private.

 

More on the Due-on-Sale Clause:

The FDIRA (Federal Depository Institutions Regulation Act; or "Garn-St. Germain Law" of

1982; 12 USC 1701+3) limits the justification for foreclosure relative to a lender's due-onsale

clause (re. an "unauthorized title transfer") under certain circumstances, one of which is

the vesting of a mortgaged property into an inter vivos trust (such as a land trust). As a

result of that federal law, mortgagors (borrowers/property owners) cannot be prohibited

from placing their real estate into a revocable, living [land] trust. Neither can they, following

establishment of the trust, be prevented from leasing the property to whomever they might

choose (so long as the lease is for less than 3 years and does not relate to an option to

purchase). To wit: when a lessee (the tenant) in such a trust property is also given a

remainder interest (i.e., becoming a successor beneficiary or remainder agent) in the same

trust, that party becomes fully entitled [under IRC 163(h)4(D)] to virtually the same incidents

and benefits of homeownership that he/she would have, had they financed the purchase of

the property in any other manner.

 

It is for all of these reasons, and more, that the NARS Equity Holding Trust System emerges

as a superior and most logical and protective means of conveying the benefits of real estate

ownership when a seller would choose to leave the current underlying financing in place to

assist an acquiring party.

 

{Q and A}

 

Q: How would a seller’s placing a home into a Title Holding Trust, and then creating an

Equity Holding Trust™ (with respect to the seller’s applying for another home loan), be

viewed by a new lender?

A: By holding a property in an Equity Holding Trust™, which property is leased to the cobeneficiary,

the Settlor beneficiary will be seen by any lender as an "income property" owner

(as if he/she were one of two partners in a rental property). However, the absence of the

standard expenses of maintenance, management and vacancies, coupled with higher than

normal rent, often times provides an excellent incentive for a much higher-than-normal

"Income-to-Rental-Expense" consideration by the new lender

 

Q: What happens when a co-beneficiary fails to make payments when due?

A: In the event of default, the party or entity acting as "landlord" would issue a 3-Day Notice

to Pay or Quit, which notice would, if necessary, be followed by an Unlawful Detainer Action.

By the defaulting party’s own agreement, the default itself (within itself) becomes

constructive notice (to the non-defaulting beneficiary/ies) of the defaulting party’s intent to

sell his/her beneficiary interest in the Trust to the non-defaulting parties at Fair Market

Value as would have to be determined by an MAI Appraisal, following a substantial default

fee and payment of all past-due payment. Should any sum more than is offered by the nondefaulting

parties be proven, then that amount would be paid to the defaulting party in the

form of an unsecured promissory note to be paid when the property eventually is sold t the

natural termination of the trust.

 

Q: Can a tenant or tenant beneficiary not pay the monthly rental payment or damage the

property?

A: In the event of ANY default, the tenant (usually also a beneficiary of the Trust) is evicted;

loses their contingency fund; loses their home; gets reported to the IRS for a recapture of all

tax deductions; gets sued for all missed and remaining lease payments. Good reasons NOT

to damage the property. The vast majority of tenants do not trash apartments or houses. The Equity Holding

Trust™, gives better odds than a straight rental does that missed payments and damage do

not occur.

 

Q: What if an Equity Holding Trust™ property was to lose value during the term of the

agreement?

A: If, at the end of the Equity Holding Trust™ the property couldn't be sold (or purchased by

the co-beneficiary) for enough to return the Settlor beneficiary’s initial contribution (e.g.,

his/her equity at start); and should the non-resident choose not to reduce its refundable

contribution amount, then the co-beneficiary could choose to simply vacate the property

with no further obligation. Alternatively…by mutual agreement…the parties could extend

the contract. Note that, as is the case with any real estate purchase, down payment moneys,

or costs of improvements can, in fact, be lost due to ordinary downward trends in real

estate demand.

 

Q: Can an Equity Holding Trust™ resident co-beneficiary (the Buyer) legitimately move from

the trust property before the end of the agreement?

A: Yes. Though all agreements that comprise the Equity Holding Trust™ must be honored, a

co-beneficiary may lease or rent the property out, sell their interest, or even leave the

property vacant, so long as the other beneficiaries concur, and their interests are not

compromised or imperiled by such actions.

 

Q: What happens if a beneficiary were to die during the term of an Equity Holding Trust™?

A: Beneficiary interest in the Equity Holding Trust™ passes to the heirs of a deceased

beneficiary; which heirs then inherit precisely the same obligations, responsibilities, rights,

and privileges as were held by the original beneficiary. Nothing changes.

 

Q: How is the property's "mutually agreed value" determined at the inception of the Equity

Holding Trust™, since there is no sale price per sé?

A: The "MAV" is set purely for the purpose of determining the Settlor beneficiary’s initial

contribution at start (e.g., his or her "equity," along with any non-recurring closing costs

paid). The MAV is generally the greater of – 1) the fair-market-value inferred by a

professional Comparative Market Analysis, or 2) the value of the property reflected by a

mutually acceptable value determination; or 3) the aggregate amount of the existing loan/s

against the property (i.e., whichever is greater).

 

Q: Why might a buyer choose an Equity Holding Trust™ purchase, even if loan on the

property were to be greater than the property’s value?

A: The "over-encumbrance" on an Equity Holding Trust™ property is often perceived as

simply a trade-off for a party’s inability to qualify for a mortgage loan, or lack of a standard

down payment or preferred credit. In that the Equity Holding Trust™ purchase may avoid the

handicap of self-employment, newness on the job, limited job history, or marginal credit

history – one might choose to disregard the over-encumbrance. The fact is, that if by the

end of the agreement, the resale value of the property had not increased sufficiently to

cover the loan against it, then the resident may – 1) petition to extend the agreement, or 2)

just move out and return the property to the original owner. If the aggregate monthly (aftertax)

payment is in keeping with normal rent, and if the loan need not be paid-off at any

particular time, an Equity Holding Trust™ buyer might find an over-encumbrance

inconsequential. Here’s an example:

 

Q: Could a mortgage lender claim that the Equity Holding Trust™ violated its due-on-sale

clause?

A: Yes... although doing so would be contrary to the provisions of Federal Law (The Garn-St.

Germain Act). No one can predict what a mortgage lender could [or might] "claim"; but,

insomuch as none of the Equity Holding Trust™ documents are recorded (and needn't be),

and since the Equity Holding Trust™ does not adversely affect the lender's security interest,

such an assertion by a lender would be unlikely. The Garn-St. Germain Act (FDIRA 1982)

provides that any homeowner may place its mortgaged property into a qualified revocable

living trust, and lease the trust property to anyone he/she might choose… irrespective of

what a lender's "druthers" might be. None-the-less, it is conceivable that a lender could

declare the "intent" of the Equity Holding Trust™ to be contrary to their best interest, and

assert that it was somehow a ruse to circumvent their ability to capitalize on the prevailing

real estate market.

In such a claim by a lender (institutional or private), the court would need to determine if

any laws had been broken; as well as "how" and "if" the lender had been injured. Therefore,

in actuality, the true (real) effect of the Equity Holding Trust™ is protection of the lender’s

interests by its avoidance of: 1) alienation; 2) prohibited ownership transfer or title

involvement; and 3) an unwise transfer of real property ownership under duress or threat of

financial loss. The co-beneficiary (acquiring party) in an Equity Holding Trust™ does not

receive real estate ownership; a bargain purchase option; or any loan of moneys. If, and/or

when, the co-beneficiary would choose to acquire ownership of the property owned by the

nominated trustee, such purchase would only be by ordinary means. Such purchase would

be by a mortgage loan… or a petition for a bona fide Assignment and Assumption of the

existing mortgage financing.

 

Q: In its 100+ years of use in the US, have Title-Holding Land Trusts ever been challenged

by lenders claiming they were damaged by the unrecorded and private assignment of a Title

Holding Land Trust's Co-Beneficiary interest?

A: Yes and all such challenges were adjudicated in favor of the beneficiaries. However, one

must note that the Title-Holding Land Trust in most states (e.g., California or Texas) is not a

"statutory" instrument: essentially meaning that there is no statute (law) or judicial history

relative to it, and that no specific "Land Trust Act" per sé exists (yet). The title holding land

trust in most states is, nonetheless, wholly operative and legal by virtue of its exclusion

from specific prohibitions under the various states’ "Statute of [Land] Uses."

Although we know of none in recent years, a few such actions have been brought in the past

— and in each case, the decision of the court was in favor of the defendant (i.e., the lender

lost).

 

Q: Since NARS has its own attorneys and accountants, should I consult with my own legal

and accounting advisors regarding the feasibility of the Equity Holding Trust™ in my

situation?

A: Yes. One should always seek out and heed the advice of his/her own legal and tax

advisors, as well as seeking one’s own independent real estate agency advice. However, do

note that chances of locating an attorney familiar with the various nuances of land trusts

(not to mention the Equity Holding Trust) are remote at best. What will invariably happen is

that an attorney not familiar with the Equity Holding Trust™ will strongly advise (if not insist

upon) forgoing the myriad safety features and protections of the Equity Holding Trust in

favor of something he or she better understands and can charge more for (Lease Option,

Wraps, Contracts for Deed, etc. now mostly exceedingly difficult to do in Texas, North

Carolina and increasingly, other states): precisely the very creative financing schemes, the

dangers and risks of which, the Equity Holding Trust was designed to avoid.

Though North American Realty Services, Inc. (NARS) and Ama-Kya Investments, Inc. do

certainly welcome inquiries from any legal, accounting or real estate professionals, its

accounting and legal staff may represent only its own best interests in a court of law due to

standard Conflict of Interest regulations.

 

Q: Are most Attorneys and accountants familiar with the Equity Holding Trust™ or the

workings of the "Title-holding Land Trust" in general?

A: No (not by any means). As a matter-of-fact, in most states where the title holding land

trust is not statutory, were one to interview 100 attorneys, perhaps twenty-five or thirty

might be familiar with, and closely accustomed to working with trusts in general; then of

those, maybe only one might be reasonably well versed in the specifics and subtleties of

"title-holding" land trusts: then out of a hundred of those, you might find one who has ever

heard of the Equity Holding Trust.

As mentioned in a preceding question, that which invariably happens is that an uninformed

attorney will strongly advise (if not insist upon) forgoing the myriad safety features and

protections of the Equity Holding Trust in favor of doing something he or she better

understands, and for which they can charge more (Lease Option, Wraps, Contracts for Deed,

etc. These are no longer viable in Texas due in my view to the correct legislation being

enacted in 2005 PM): precisely the very creative financing schemes from which the Equity

Holding Trust was designed to protect you.

 

Q: What would happen in the event of an irreconcilable dispute between the co-beneficiaries

in an Equity Holding Trust™?

A: Such occurrences are rare due to the third-party neutral trustee aspect of the Equity

Holding Trust™ arrangement, and due to the meticulous and comprehensive nature of

NARS’ documentation. However, Equity Holding Trust™ beneficiaries do contractually agree

in advance that such a disputes, should one ever occur, will be settled by the rules of

binding arbitration, and that each party will abide by and rely upon the decision of an

arbitrator associated with, and designated by, the American Arbitration Association.

 

Q: What would stop a grantor, in his own revocable trust (a trust which is set up in his own

name or with him as the only beneficiary), from revoking it, or changing his mind about

terms, without the knowledge or consent of the other beneficiary/ies?

A: Of prime importance is the fact that a Title-Holding Land Trust is directed by ALL of its

beneficiaries unanimously (i.e., Power of Direction is mutual among beneficiaries). In other

words, unless special provision are made in advance to the contrary, no single beneficiary or

group of beneficiaries can direct the legal owner – the trustee – to do anything, sign

anything, or approve anything involving the property’s title without the absolute

concurrence and unanimous direction of [all] the others. As a result, a beneficiary cannot

alter the trust agreement, borrow money on the trust property, or bring about a lien against

it, without the full agreement and direction (or complicity) of the other beneficiary/ies.

Likewise, a single co-beneficiary cannot add a room, install a swimming pool, or encumber

the property or cloud the title in any manner without the full knowledge, consent, and

direction of the other co-beneficiary/ies.

 

Q: What might be the standard costs for establishing an Equity Holding Trust™?

A: From 0.5% to 1.0% (half a percent to one-percent) of a property’s Mutually Agreed Value

(MAV) at inception. Apart from any Realtor’s commission, typical aggregate closing costs for

an Equity Holding Trust™ transaction, combining both the buyer’s and seller’s costs, can

run upwards of two percent (2%) to three percent (3%) of the property’s MAV at inception.

The fee for setting up the Trust itself, and CHB consultation fee (including facilitation and

documentation) generally comprises only 1/4th. 1/3rd to ½, of the total closing costs. The

remainder (beyond the consulting and set-up fee) includes, but may not be limited to the

following: the escrow company fee (optional); title insurance or title search (optional but

recommended); prorated and advance property taxes; hazard insurance premium; credit

report (optional), home warranty insurance (optional), and termite inspection (optional).

Though not a part of the Closing Costs per sé: one should take care to budget for the first

payment due on the contract, and for perhaps at least one monthly payment to be held in a

Contingency Fund (as a buffer for delayed payments).

 

Q: Is there a minimum or maximum allowable term for an Equity Holding Trust™?

A: Yes. It is reported in the literature that any land trust whose term is deemed a

contrivance to avoid payment of income tax would (could) be challenged by the IRS and

declared a "dry" or "failed" trust. For example, if the trust's term clearly conflicted with time

requirements of certain tax deferment or exemption provisions (e.g., tax-deferred

exchange), the trust could be characterized as a non-standard corporate entity or a security

agreement. A failed trust could [might] conceivably —

1. Deprive the co-beneficiary of mortgage interest and property tax deductions; and/or

2. Create an untimely capital-gains tax event for the Settlor beneficiary.

For these reasons only, it is recommended (though not mandatory) that two years be

considered the minimum term for an Equity Holding Trust™ Regulations relative to

Perpetuities would also compel a "land trust" term to be limited to no more than 20 years,

or the length of the underlying financing on the trust property, whichever would be greater.

Q: While an Equity Holding Trust™ Co-beneficiary who is a resident in the trust property

claims the "active" tax deduction for interest and property taxes, can a Settlor or investor

beneficiary take the "passive" write-off for deprecation?

A: The tax regulations are not absolutely clear on this issue; however, there is nothing in the

tax code that would preclude a non-resident beneficiary who was holding its interest for

income-production purposes, from claiming the full Depreciation allowance. As a matter of

fact, if not taken, the IRS would more than likely impose it at termination in order to adjust

the property’s tax "basis" downward to create a wider taxable gain.

 

Q: Can the Equity Holding Trust™ be utilized in buying or selling commercial property?

A: Yes. A Title-Holding Land Trust can hold commercial property. As a matter-of-fact,

multiple beneficiaries can hold varying percentages of beneficiary interest…as little as 10%

each in such a trust. Do note, however, that specific protection under the "Garn-St. Germain

Act" extends only to residential property of fewer than five units. This means that transfer

of a commercial property may need to be approved by the lender to void triggering a Dueon-Sale Clause remedy.

 

If you are interested in pursuing this aspect as a remedy to your situation please feel free to

contact me and I can arrange for a conference consultation and or a visit to your home.

Go to: Seller Form Now

 

Thanks Ron

Cash Home Buyers

Roncashhomebuyer@aol.com 

713-724-6404

Fax 469-442-0137

 

Disclaimer. I’m not an attorney an account or other recognized professional and do not purport

to give legal, accounting or tax advice.

 

 Harris county Cash Home Buyers     Brazoria Cash Home Buyers   Galveston Cash Home Buyers  

Fort Bend Cash Home Buyers  Wharton Cash Home Buyers