How to Conduct a 1031 Exchange Prior to Divorce

Published on
October 12, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

Basics of 1031 Exchange

An IRC Section 1031 exchange is a complex transaction in which investment property is either directly exchanged for another investment property or an investment property is sold. Then another property is acquired using the proceeds from the sale. In either variation, the purpose is to defer capital gains taxes ordinarily owed on profits. 1031 exchanges must follow many rules and regulations to be valid. Investors usually hire a specialist to provide consulting to ensure compliance.The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act nearly eliminated 1031 exchanges, but it, fortunately, preserved real estate exchanges. It removed exchanges of personal property. So now it’s no longer possible (at this time) to conduct 1031 exchanges involving personal investment property.

Why Divorce is Relevant

Why would divorce be relevant for 1031 exchanges? The answer is that the owner conducting 1031 exchanges must remain the owner throughout the transaction. In other words, if person A owns a piece of investment real estate and conducts a 1031 exchange, person A also must be the one to acquire the replacement property. If a couple divorces, this can cause issues regarding how property is titled or held. After a divorce, you may no longer hold a given piece of property in the same manner, which is significant in a 1031 exchange context.

Conducting an Exchange Before Divorce

If a couple wants to conduct an exchange using their investment real estate, and that real estate is jointly owned (i.e., title held as a married person), then that couple will need to both sell and acquire new real estate as a married couple. The entire exchange can fail if the same entity does not sell and acquire property in an exchange. If a couple wants to divorce but also wants to conduct an exchange to maximize their finances, the couple can structure their transaction accordingly. First, the couple would need to sell the property as a married couple and then acquire a replacement property as a married couple. They need to achieve these actions within 180 days. Then, after satisfying the “holding requirement” for the acquired property, the parties can execute the divorce and handle the newly acquired property as they see fit.The parties can liquidate the property and then divide the proceeds. Or, one party may transfer all their interests in the property in exchange for cash. The parties may even continue holding the property together, but as partners in an LLC, as opposed to a married couple or as joint tenants in common.The key points that readers need to take away are as follows: (1) to make matters as simple as possible, couples should avoid getting divorced while conducting an exchange, (2) getting divorced immediately after an exchange may also cause issues with the holding requirement for newly acquired property, (3) couples should either divorce well before conducting an exchange or well after conducting an exchange.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information

Conducting 1031 exchanges is often complex and requires expert counsel. If you’re contemplating divorce and may conduct an exchange soon, you’ll want to consult with an expert before finalizing anything. If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

1031 exchange|Acquired Property|Counsel|Divorce|Divorce case|Divorce Cases|Exhcanges|Family law attorney|family law attorney near me|family law lawyers|Family Lawyer|Good counsel|Holding requirement|Investment|Investment Property|IRC|IRC Section 1031 exchange|Legal case|Litigants|Marriage|Marriage issue|Maryland Court|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Law|Maryland Family Lawyer|Maryland Law|personal property|Property|Property Division|Real estate|Real estate investment|Tax Cuts & Jobs Act

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.