February 15, 2008: Vacation Home Exchanges. The IRS issues a revenue procedure providing a safe harbor for exchanges of vacation homes. Rev. Proc. 2008-16 (For further information, see my article, The New Safe Harbor for Vacation Home Exchanges)

February 15, 2008: Partnership Interests and Disregarded Entity. Taxpayer's receipt of 100 percent of the interests of the partners in a partnership that holds real property, by a disregarded entity created by Taxpayer to receive the real property, will be treated as the receipt of property that is like kind to the real property disposed of by Taxpayer. Ltr. Rul. 2008-07005

February 1, 2008: Development Rights. The IRS approves an exchange of real property for “development rights” which, under state law, were considered real property. Ltr. Rul. 2008-05012

May 30, 2007: Vacation Home Exchange.
Tax Court denies exchange treatment where both the relinquished property and the replacement property were vacation homes which the taxpayers used exclusively for their personal use, never even attempted to rent to third parties and treated as personal residences on the tax returns. Moore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-134. (For further information, see my article, Can a Vacation Home be Exchanged under IRC Section 1031?)

March 23, 2007: Related Party Exchange.
IRS approves series of transactions in which Taxpayer transfers the relinquished property to a related party in exchange for replacement property which the related party has acquired from an unrelated third party. Furthermore, Taxpayer will recognize no gain upon the related party’s sale of the relinquished property within two years of the exchange. Ltr. Rul. 2007-12013

February 9, 2007: Related Party Exchange.
Exchange by Taxpayer with a family Trust and with her Siblings of Taxpayer’s undivided 25% interest in Parcel # 1 for a 100% interest in Parcel # 3 will constitute a like-kind exchange. In addition, the Trust's subsequent sale of its interest in Parcel # 1 is not a disposition that causes recognition of any gain to Taxpayer, pursuant to 1031(f), because the avoidance of Federal income tax was not one of the principal purposes of the exchange or subsequent disposition of Parcel # 1. Ltr. Rul. 2007-06001

September 30, 2006: Requirement that Relinquished Property be Held for a Proper Purpose.
A limited liability company (the “LLC”) received certain parcels of real property in the liquidating distribution of a trust. Although the trust entered into binding sales agreements prior to distributing those properties to the LLC, the IRS approves the LLC’s proposed exchange of those properties. Ltr. Rul. 2006-51030

September 8, 2006: Exchange of Stewardship Easement.
Taxpayer wishes to grant to a County a perpetual stewardship easement (the “Easement”) on Taxpayer’s Ranch. In return, County is willing to grant to Taxpayer certain stewardship credits (the “Credits”). The IRS approves Taxpayer’s proposed exchange in which Taxpayer grants the Easement to the County, which grants the Credits to a builder, which pays the fair market value of the Credits to the QI, which purchases from a seller and transfers to Taxpayer a replacement property. Ltr. Rul. 2006-49028

March 1, 2006: Exchange of Undivided Fractional Interests.
The IRS approves the structuring of a syndicated offering of undivided fractional interests (i.e. tenancy in common interests), holding that it complies with the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2002-22. Ltr. Rul. 2006-625009

December 22, 2005: Related Party Exchange.
Trust owns Property 1, related party S Corporation owns Property 2, an unrelated Seller owns Property 3 and an unrelated Buyer wishes to purchase Property 1. Utilizing a QI, Trust wishes to exchange Property 1 for Property 3 and S Corporation wishes to exchange Property 1 for Property 2. The IRS approves both of these exchanges between related parties provided that Trust does not dispose of Property 3 within two years of acquiring it and that S Corporation does not dispose of Property 2 within two years of acquiring that property. Ltr. Rul. 2006-16005

February 24, 2005:
A testamentary trust may hold may hold replacement received in an exchange “for productive use in a trade or business or for investment” even though the trust soon will terminate and will distribute its properties. Ltr. Rul. 2005-21002

February 9, 2005:
An exchange is disallowed because it falls afoul of the related party rules. Teruya Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. No. 4

January 27, 2005:
The IRS provides guidance for combining (and getting the benefits of) IRC sections 121 and 1031 in the transfer of a single piece of property. Rev. Proc. 2005-14

January 14, 2005:
The I.R.S. grants extensions of the deadlines in tax deferred exchanges to taxpayers affected by certain hurricanes and other disasters. Notice 2005-3. (For further information, see my article, I.R.S. Extends Section 1031 Deadlines for Hurricane Victims and Certain Other Taxpayers.)

October 22, 2004:
IRC section 121, which permits taxpayers to exclude up to $250,000 of gain on the sale of their principal residences ($500,000 for married taxpayers) if they have resided in the property for two of the preceding five years is amended to require a taxpayer to own the property for five years if it originally was acquired as a replacement property in a tax-deferred exchange. IRC §121(d)(10).

August 16, 2004:
Because lenders frequently are reluctant to make loans to or permit assumptions by groups of tenancy in common (“TIC”) investors, many promoters of TIC investments have hoped that use of a Delaware Statutory Trust (“DST”) would resolve the problem of obtaining or assuming financing. The IRS now has ruled that an interest in a DST constitutes like kind property for purposes of IRC §1031. However, the ruling expressly states that the trustee’s powers must be limited in a number of ways that are likely to limit the appeal of this vehicle. Rev. Rul. 2004-86.

July 20, 2004:
Rev. Proc 2000-37 is modified to deny safe harbor treatment to reverse exchanges in which the replacement property consists of property which the taxpayer has owned at any time within 180 days prior to its acquisition by the exchange accommodation titleholder. Rev. Proc. 2004-51.

June 14, 2004:
The IRS holds that an exchange between related parties does not violate the related party rules where both related parties acquire replacement properties which will be held for at least two years. Ltr. Rul. 2004-40002.

May 5, 2004:
Members of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation issue a report commenting on Rev. Proc. 2000-37 in the context of the construction of leasehold improvements in safe harbor build-to-suit exchanges.

December 10, 2003:
The IRS approves exchange by each of three related taxpayers of their undivided interests in three properties for outright ownership by each taxpayer of one of the three properties. Ltr. Rul. 2004-110234.

June 11, 2003:
The fact that an intermediary is managed by an entity owned by a related party does not cause the intermediary to be a disqualified party. Ltr. Rul. 2003-38001.

May 22, 2003:
  A taxpayer is treated as having been relieved of liabilities in the first year of an exchange which straddles two tax years. Rev. Rul. 2003-56.

May 7, 2003:
An exchange is disallowed where, even though a qualified intermediary is used, the taxpayer acquires replacement property from a related party which receives money or other property in the transaction. Rev. Rul. 2002-83.

April 7, 2003:
  In a ruling similar to Ltr. Rul. 2002-51008, the IRS approves an exchange in which an exchange accommodation titleholder will acquire from a party related to the taxpayer a long term leasehold interest in real property even though improvements will be constructed while title is held by the exchange accommodation titleholder. Ltr. Rul. 2003-29021. (For further information, see my article, Construction Exchanges: A Tale of Two Letter Rulings.)

October 9, 2002:
A husband and wife are treated as a single owner where their interest in a limited liability company is community property. Rev. Proc. 2002-69.

September 16, 2002:
Water rights are held not to be like-kind to farm land. Wiechens v. United States, KTC 2002-336 (D. Ariz. 2002).

September 11, 2002:
The IRS approves an exchange in which an exchange accommodation titleholder will acquire from a party related to the taxpayer a long term leasehold interest in real property even though improvements will be constructed while title is held by the exchange accommodation titleholder.  Ltr. Rul. 2002-51008. (For further information, see my article, Construction Exchanges: A Tale of Two Letter Rulings.)

April 1, 2002:
The IRS stipulates that a valid exchange occurred notwithstanding the fact that the taxpayer had converted the relinquished property from being a personal residence to being investment property only four months prior to its disposition. However, taxpayer’s improper determination of its basis in the relinquished property results in a 20% negligence penalty! Bundren v. Commissioner (10^th Cir 2002) 32 Fed App 527, aff’g. T.C. Memo 2001-2.

March 19, 2002: 
The IRS details the requirements for obtaining an advance ruling as to the tax classification of undivided fractional interests (also known as tenancy-in-common interests.) Rev. Proc. 2002-22. (For further information, see my article, Exchanges of Undivided Interests in Real Property after Rev. Proc. 2002-22.)

December 12, 2001: 
The 180-day period cannot be extended for the period of time during which the qualified intermediary is in receivership. Ltr. Rul. 2002-11016.

October 2, 2001:
A perpetual conservation easement, which is an interest in real property under state law, is held to be like kind to a ranch.  Ltr. Rul. 2001-01007.

September 14, 2001: 
In a Field Service Advice, the IRS determines that related party rules do not disqualify an exchange between a taxpayer’s partnership and his son’s S corporation as long as there is no tax avoidance purpose. FSA 200137003.

August 29, 2001: 
In a reverse exchange, a provision in the exchange agreement that the exchange accommodation titleholder, “…is acting solely as exchanger’s agent for all purposes, except for federal income tax purposes” does not invalidate the exchange. Ltr. Rul. 2001-48042.

August 3, 2001: 
The transfer by a taxpayer of the replacement property to a single-member LLC does not violate the requirement that the replacement property must be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. Ltr. Rul. 2001-31014.

March 22, 2001: 
A related party exchange in which” basis shifting” occurs is disallowed. TAM 2001-26007.

January 31, 2001: 
A taxpayer’s acquisition of the single member LLC to which the replacement property has been transferred does not adversely affect qualification of the exchange where the LLC will be treated for tax purposes as a pass through entity.  Ltr. Rul. 2001-18023.

December 8, 2000: 
The IRS rules that in order for a non-safe harbor reverse exchange to qualify, the taxpayer must demonstrate its attempt to complete an exchange, the properties to be exchanged must meet the “like-kind” and “qualified use” tests, the steps taken must be part of an integrated plan and the party holding the replacement property must not be the taxpayer’s agent. Ltr. Rul. 2001-11025.

November 17, 2000: 
Taxpayers owned both improved real property (the “McDonald Property”) and unimproved real property (the “Lawrence Property”). The tax court disallows tax-deferred exchange treatment where taxpayers transferred the Lawrence Property to Western Lime and Cement Co., which then constructed improvements on the Lawrence Property and conveyed it back to taxpayers in exchange for taxpayers’ transfer of the McDonald Property. DeCleene v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. No. 34.

September 15, 2000: 
The IRS issues a revenue procedure setting forth the safe harbor requirements for a “reverse” exchange. Rev. Proc. 2000-37. (For further information, see my article, Rev. Proc. 2000-37: The New Safe Harbor For Reverse Exchanges.)

September 3, 1999: 
The IRS disqualifies a section 1031 exchange in which the taxpayer was a partner with “A” in partnership X. The partnership was dissolved, certain real property was distributed to the taxpayer and that property became the taxpayer’s relinquished property in its intended exchange. “A” subsequently acquired that property. The exchange was disqualified because the transaction was really a sale of the taxpayer’s partnership interest. Ltr. Rul. 1999-51004.  (For further information, see my article, Exchanges Involving Partners and Partnerships - Reading the Tea Leaves.)