Skip to content
×
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
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties. Try BiggerPockets PRO.
x
All Forum Categories
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

All Forum Posts by: Bill McCoy

Bill McCoy has started 4 posts and replied 5 times.

Since ADU rules were liberalized by Seattle in 2019 (one attached + one detached allowed on any single-family lot, no owner-occupancy requirement, no restriction against separate sale). a number of spec builders in Seattle have been building what may look like a townhouse triplex but is legally a single family primary homes plus two ADUs, one attached and one detached. They are condo-ized and sold individually. Banks seem OK to finance them. For example 8610 37th Avenue S on Beacon Hill. If this property had been in one of the areas zone for more density they would surely have done a normal "Seattle six-pack" of 0-lot-line townhouses but instead they short platted 2 lots to still in effect end up with a six-pack even though in an area not zoned for it, at the cost of having to sell units as condos and deal with other ADU limitations (e.g. 1000sf limit).

In 2023 the State mandated Seattle-style ADU regulations across all urban growth area cities/counties, going even a bit further (2 of any combination of attached/detached allowed). I am contemplating whether to do a similar "hack" on a property in a Seattle suburb. It is zoned multi-family and I could do 14 or 15 straight townhouses but the City in question, while they immediately adopted the latest ADU rules, has archaic multi-family land-use regulations centered on a large apartment complex mentality that are costly for infill / middle housing (1.75 off-street parking spaces per unit, major landscaping requirements, "amenity" requirements, unreasonably large setbacks, etc.). For example one big row of 15 units isn't optimal but if I want to break them up I would have to have 20' between blocks, which would kill yield.

Instead of waiting for them to modernize their multi-family regs (at least a year out, maybe two) or sucking it up and living with the costs as things stand, I could instead do 5 "triplexes" of single-family + 2 ADUs and bypass some restrictions (only 5' setbacks between blocks, 1 parking space per ADU unit instead of 1.75, etc.).

But I'm concerned that Seattle builders may quickly move away from this strategy as HB1110 will (in Seattle and many other larger cities/counties, but not mine) soon enable sixplex townhouses in pretty much all the areas where the condo-ized ADU strategy has been mushrooming. No one in our area has adopted this trick at all (our ADU liberalization being brand new). And, of course, no one has been doing condos at all, pretty much, since the early 2000s, thanks to the builder liability pitfall. If this strategy will be proliferating in Seattle and elsewhere, I feel more comfortable with it. But if these Seattle projects will, two years from now after HB1110 rules are in force, appear to have been an ephemeral thing that came and went among a handful of limit-pushing builders, our development might end up seeming weird (which could impact both buyer appeal & financeability).

I know there's no crystal ball and the State rules have been changing rapidly, and might still change further. But I would appreciate anyone's thoughts.

Post: tax consequences of "short sale" on private note?

Bill McCoyPosted
  • Bainbridge Island, WA
  • Posts 5
  • Votes 0

Thanks Chris. My further research indicated that any deficit in return on original loan amount is considered a "non-business bad debt" treated as short-term capital loss, but foregone interest is excluded (because individuals operate on a cash basis). 

You are correct that in any given year only $3,000 of capital loss can be used to offset regular income.

Post: tax consequences of "short sale" on private note?

Bill McCoyPosted
  • Bainbridge Island, WA
  • Posts 5
  • Votes 0

I held a private deed of trust (5 years, balloon payment) in a friendly transaction but it was all properly recorded, etc.. I agreed to effectively a short sale: mortgagee sold property and I received all proceeds, which did not quite cover the principal amount and thus didn't cover any of the accumulated interest. There was no foreclosure, but I was paid directly from escrow.My question is how to report this transaction on my taxes - just now realizing this might have tipped me towards using a tax accountant this year but a bit late now! I think I at least have a small capital loss on the deficit to principal but perhaps a larger capital loss if I can write off the agreed interest income that I didn't receive?? 

Hoping someone on this forum can provide some pointers. Thanks in advance.

Post: partnership with spec house builder

Bill McCoyPosted
  • Bainbridge Island, WA
  • Posts 5
  • Votes 0

I have two ready-to-go lots in good location. A spec house builder with a good track record (25+ SFRs in small local community over last 8 years, all sold and some since resold with good appreciation) some access to bank financing) proposes to partner with me on the following general basis: I supply land to the deal at fair value, I supply all the hard money for construction at 12%, we split the profit or loss from sale 50/50, they act as GC on cost + 2% basis. The upside for me per their proforma (less risk-free return on my money) would be roughly 50% boost over what I would get by just selling the lots. Obviously this would require a considerable amount of trust that they would see the project through and also that they would not be padding payments to subs but aside from the trust factors (which could be mitigated to some extent by appropriate legal terms) does this seem like a reasonably fair arrangement? Local market is very strong now but could be nearing the end of cyclical boom so there would be downside exposure but if I ended up having to carrying one or both homes for a couple years that wouldn't be outrageous.

Hi, I'm about to put a Bainbridge Island home on the market, and need a licensed RE agent to hold open houses the afternoons of Thurs July 6 and Sun July 9. Ideal if you can also do Sat July 8 and, if needed, Sun July 16.  Great opportunity to earn some $ and meet buyers, and learn more about Bainbridge RE market.  Home is centrally located near sought-after Wilkes Elementary, fully staged, and attractively priced. Contact me if interested.