Tag Archives: eminent domain relocation

Appraisers, Attorneys, Businesses, Eminent Domain, Property Owners

Are Eminent Domain Relocation Payments a 1033 Tax Exchange or Not Considered Income?

Leave a comment

Every year thousands of tax filers, and likely, their tax preparers, are dealing with tax issues related to relocation payments received for relocating a business or household from public projects where the government agency is using eminent domain and condemnation. As an eminent domain relocation consultant, my clients frequently bring up tax issues related to relocation payments, or reimbursements. Based on their comments, some tax preparers treat relocation payments as a 1033 exchange; some treat them as non-income; while others treat them as ordinary income.

Until recently, answers to tax issues related to relocation payments have been eluding me for 20 years. A few years back I called the IRS for answers. After nearly an hour on the phone with the agent grasping for answers, but not finding any, I heard a sneeze and a click. I was “accidently” disconnected. More recently, I quizzed nearly everyone I know working in the eminent domain field for a connection to someone that knows, only to find leads to dead ends.

Below are quotes from the Federal Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act (URA) and the IRS, which cause me and others to ask more questions. I included an example of a project raising specific tax questions, and lastly are some common questions I’ve heard over many years from many clients.

All relocation programs for public projects using federal funding are based on the (URA) and include the following language, “No relocation payment received by a displaced person under this part shall be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which has been re-designated as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Title 2, U.S. Code).” This leads to the IRS code which states, “42 USC § 4636 – PAYMENTS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FOR REVENUE PURPOSES OR FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OR OTHER FEDERAL LAW.” The language in these two items would lead one to believe that relocation payments are not income and therefore non-taxable.

Following is a brief, common, and recent example of a situation that further complicates this issue. On a public project using eminent domain and following the URA, we successfully argued that certain pieces of equipment should be reclassified as personal property and eligible for relocation payments, which includes an optional payment for abandonment of the personal property. The public agency had earlier classified these items as immovable fixtures, which would leave the items ineligible for relocation payments, and only eligible for smaller payments, which were based on their depreciated real property value.  The relocation payments received for these items reclassified to personal property where significantly higher.

To emphasize the magnitude of this tax issue on a business, this client received a payment from the public agency for abandoning several million dollars’ worth of the personal property. Abandoning personal property is part of the relocation benefits program; therefore, these payments along with payments made for relocating other personal property are considered relocation payments. Taking the language from the URA and IRS at face value, one would believe these payments are not considered as income, thus non-taxable. Is that a reasonable belief?

The tax issues for relocation payments raises some common concerns and questions, such as; treating relocation payments as a 1033 exchange leaves the possibility of a taxable event in the future, which seems contrary to the IRS code mentioned above. In addition, personal property does not seem to fit within the scope of the 1033 exchange. For tax purposes, should payments for abandoned personal property be treated different from relocated personal property, even though both payments are considered relocation payments and presumably non-taxable?

We spend a lot of time analyzing and planning to improve the outcome of our client’s relocation efforts, however, tax planning has been a missing component within those efforts. I have recently discussed these matters with tax advisors with experience in these situations and found that handling them is somewhat specific to the situation, therefore, if you contact me, I would be happy to refer you to them.

Appraisers, Attorneys, Businesses, Contact Martyn, Eminent Domain, Property Owners

An Overview of Capped Actual Cost Items for Business Owners Affected by Eminent Domain

Leave a comment

In my last blog post entitled, “Would You Choose Lump Sum or Actual Cost Relocation Reimbursement? I discussed two reimbursement options available to business owners who must relocated due to eminent domain; lump sum and actual cost.

If a business owner chooses to be reimbursed using actual cost as the basis for the claims, some expenses are capped.

Capped Expenses: Reestablishment (maximum $25,000):

Note that the $25,000 cap mentioned above is the minimum set by the Federal Relocation Guidelines. Some states have higher amounts, some are at $50k or higher, and a few are unlimited. Link to a state-by-state relocation listing here.

1. Repairs or improvement to the replacement property as required by law or code

2. Modification to the replacement property to enable the business to operate

3. Construction and installation of new signage to advertise the business

4. Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces such as carpeting, paint, paneling

5. Advertisement of the replacement location

6. Increased cost of operations for two years

7. Other items considered essential to the reestablishment of the business

Since an eminent domain and business relocation consultant’s services are an eligible cost when opting for the actual cost for a planned relocation, the capped items listed above are where a consultant’s expertise is important.

For example, #2 – capped within the $25,000 (depending on your state or location) is ‘modification to the replacement property to enable the business to operate’.  A consultant with construction experience can suggest modifications which are contained within that reimbursement amount.

On the other hand, a business owner may simply look at a replacement property (if he even has the time to search for properties) and believe that hefty modifications leading to out-of-pocket expenses is the only solution to enable the business to operate.

Can you see why an eminent domain and business relocation consultant’s services are absolutely necessary to the seamless transition in an eminent domain move?

In my next blog post, I will compare actual cost estimates for relocation for small businesses versus acceptance of the lump sum.

Do you have any questions about the capped amount in your state?

Appraisers, Attorneys, Businesses, Contact Martyn, Eminent Domain, relocation

Would You Choose Lump Sum or Actual Cost Relocation Reimbursement?

Leave a comment

Under Relocation Guidelines featured on my site by state, business owners who must relocate due to eminent domain can choose to receive benefits from the government agency one of two ways.

1) Lump Sum Payment – up to $40,000 based on income

2) Actual Cost Relocation – based on actual eligible costs, some of which are capped.

Lump Sum Payment

Business owners can receive a lump sum or a fixed payment of up to $40,000 and call it a day.  The business owner will move themselves and no other claims can be submitted to the agency for reimbursement.

So if it costs the business owner $300,000 to relocate machinery, office equipment, parts, furniture for example, along with setting up of computers, telephones, heating and air conditioning, the business owner will pay-out-of-pocket for anything over and above the $40,000 amount.

In this example this amount would be $260,000.

In a cash-strapped economy, any out-of-pocket expenses could make or break a business.

Actual Cost Relocation

The following expenses can be reimbursed to the business owner based on the individual and actual costs of the move.

Moving (no maximum amount with one exception):

1. Transportation of Personal Property

2. Packing, crating, unpacking, uncrating of Personal Property

3. Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling equipment, machinery, and other personal property

4. Storage of personal property up to 12 months

5. Insurance for the replacement value of personal property during the move and necessary storage

6. Any license, permit, or certification required at the replacement site, which the business had at the displacement location

7. Replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged during the move

8. Professional services for planning, moving, and reinstalling the personal property

9. Re-lettering signs and replacing printed materials made obsolete by the move

  • Stationery
  • Notification of the move

10. Actual direct loss of tangible personal property

11. Reasonable cost incurred trying to sell and item that is not to be relocated

12. Purchase of substitute personal property.

13. Searching for a replacement location (Maximum $2,500)

14. Costs to secure professional move bids

15. Low Value/High Bulk

16. Disposal of personal property and hazardous materials

If a business owner does not opt for the lump sum payment and chooses to be reimbursed via actual costs, there are a few expenses which are capped. My next blog will explain and list these items.

If your company has to move due to eminent domain, which option would you choose? Contact Martyn Daniel, Eminent Domain and Business Relocation Consultant to help you answer that question.

 

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain Condemnation

Leave a comment

What Property and Business Owners Need to Know About Eminent Domain or Condemnation

Property Owners:

When a public agency is taking your property for a new right-of-way or other public use, with the use of Eminent Domain or Condemnation, you have the right to receive the fair market value for your property.

Eminent domain is the law that gives the public agency the right to take your property for public use.

Condemnation is the action taken by the public agency to force you to sell your property by taking you to court where issues such as property value will be determined.

A real property appraiser will evaluate the fair market value.  The government agency condemning your property will hire an appraiser to help them determine the fair market value, which will be the basis of their offer to purchase your property. 

The property owner can also hire their own appraiser to do the same.

Any differences (which are common) between the two appraisers’ evaluations of fair market value can be negotiated between the two parties, mediated, or taken to court.

Business Owners:

Business owners located on property being taken by use of Eminent Domain, have the right to relocation benefits, if the condemning public agency is using federal funds in the project, or they have elected to pay relocation benefits.

Usually relocation benefits follow the relocation guidelines of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Authority (FTA) or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The relocation guidelines are very similar among the three federal agencies. 

Often, your state or local public agency has adopted one of the Federal Agency guidelines to use on their projects.

The public agency will provide a relocation agent to work with you on determining your eligible relocation benefits.

As part of your relocation benefits, you have the right to hire a professional to help you plan your relocation.

Martyn Daniel has helped hundreds of businesses successfully relocate while following eminent domain relocation guidelines, with the use of his consulting services, coaching services, and group workshops, to provide each business with the knowledge to make educated decisions.