Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 4 years ago,

User Stats

4
Posts
0
Votes
Nathan Lee
  • Investor
  • Middle USA
0
Votes |
4
Posts

Severing land from a SFH for estate planning

Nathan Lee
  • Investor
  • Middle USA
Posted

Land is separate for property taxation and for depreciation schedules.  I’m sure it can be done somehow.  

At issue is whether I can exceed the $15,000 annual gift exclusion to my kids by essentially making the properties functionally unmarketable by separating the two.   (Would you buy a house if you didn’t own the land and had to pay a variable ground lease?)

If a sever can’t be done, an easement from another party could serve the same purpose.   (One child owns the house, the Trustee of my trust owns an easement around the entire perimeter, for example)

I would think a very good argument could be made that the house is worth only 30 percent of its previous value.  

Obviously, heirs with a common interest would be able to rejoin the properties for their benefit.  But a third party would take no such risk.  

Thoughts?


Loading replies...