I assume that is what spawned the IRS ruling from 2002 about storage of the bullion not being with a trustee or a bank, which rendered it considered as a collectible since consideration as bullion required it to be of a certain grade AND be stored by a trustee or bank.

Along with the application the engineer will likely need a Plat or rendering depicting your lot/parcel, adjacent parcels and a diagram/detail of what you are proposing.

So to see if we can put this issue to bed, I'm requesting a formal opinion from the Board of Registration as to whether wholesaling - in the absence of a double-close - is a license required activity.I don't know how long it will take them to render an opinion, but whatever their reply, I'll post it on BP.

A tenant slips and falls on your property, or a gas-pipe explodes rendering your tenant incapacitated or in some cases much worse.

Or render a few possible building redesigns. 

He says they drag on the ignition and can over time render it useless.

Sometimes that's all it's feasible to keep.That said, it's still better to get an actual invoice for services rendered whenever possible - think of that like getting the "itemized" receipt that actually describes what you spent the money on.

I was imagining that such a seller situation (asset owned by multiple parties of which the plan is but one) would be considered sufficient to avoid the prospects of self-dealing between the plan and the for the benefit of (FBO) party on the basis of the following rationale: the other current owner(s) of the asset would have every reason to sell the asset at or above market/appraised value and the other current buyer(s) of the asset would have every reason to purchase the asset at or below market/appraised value, thereby preventing any kind of backdoor retirement plan liquidation advantage for the FBO party since there would be checks and balances against such behavior.It seems to me that the IRS could help us side-step this whole discussion by explicitly providing for the option of such transactions in cases were such an asset is sold at appraised value, as rendered by a licensed (and qualified) third-party appraisal company, thereby proving that there is no unfair advantage realized by the FBO party vis a vis his or her retirement plan.In sum, it seems that if the purpose is to keep the fox (FBO party) from guarding the hen house (retirement plan), if the point is to prevent self-dealing, if the point is to prevent the sale of the asset at some below-market value which gives the FBO party a backdoor retirement plan liquidation opportunity, a requirement for the transaction to happen at appraised value would seem to be a perfect check and balance.

After hiring an awesome local firm to do the rendering, the bank appraised the property at an after repair value of $300,000 giving me an LTV of 70%, so $210,000 total, less my $122,000 initial investment, so $88k for rehab.

---------------------------------If the tenant owned the house and the tenant authorized the repair, the offender and the victim would be one, so the merger doctrine would render the question moot.