@Joel Owens ,To answer some of your questions:- it's guaranteed by BK corporate- LL contacted me directly wanting to sell and I told him I'd buy- it's currently in the primary term- this is an absolute NNN leaseI'm partnering with a good friend to purchase the property cash.

Here is their blip on their site:First Home Mortgage Corporation is a licensed, full-service mortgage lender, providing processing, underwriting and closing for mortgages on properties in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Connecticut, South Carolina, New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Massachusetts.

However, many, perhaps most, conventional lenders {at least here} have extended/enhanced their due-on-sale trigger to include change of ownership or control in the corporate body holding title to the property and have done so both for residential and commercial mortgages.I understand having the right to call a note due, does not mean it will happen, but the potential for it to take place diminishes the option of selling the company while retaining the in-place mortgage on the property.I am interested on how one would sell the company, even with {vendor?}

If the church sends an income verification with additional "parsonage pay" he would or should qualify.If you're still concerned, he signs personally and then have the authorized corporate officer who has financial signatory authority sign in the name of the church as a guarantor on the lease.

That was interesting to know.My ad is very detailed and it states that I'm a private owner, not a realtor or corporation.

Maybe even consider Dekalb area or even as far as joliet if you can manage that.I think those hedge funds or corporate acquisition/rental companies are almost too active in that bolingbrook, romeoville area.

They are not taxed at the corporate level, instead they will issue a Schedule K1.

It is merely a legal arrangement, like a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation.

As long as you stick with an experienced and reputable provider (that have ERISA, corporate, and tax attorneys on staff, such as the four I listed previously), and follow their clearly delineated guidelines for avoiding prohibited transactions and running the 401k in a nondiscriminatory manner, then I don't view this as a risky technique whatsoever.Again, I tallked to all four providers that I cited, and all indicate that in those instances where their client plans have been audited (talking about actual audits, not generic letter of determination), that the IRS has taken no adverse actions against their clients, insofar as those clients followed the clear rules.

Spent 25+ years in corporate America -> laid off -> obtained broker's license in December.