Buyer (and Seller) Beware: Changes to Transfer and "Mansion" Taxes
In their taxation column, Ezra Dyckman and Joshua Rabinovits discuss the legislation adopted by the state Senate and Assembly as part of the New York State 2020 budget which has significantly increased the real estate transfer tax on certain conveyances of real property in New York City.
April 23, 2019 at 02:30 PM
6 minute read
As part of the New York State 2020 budget, the state Senate and Assembly adopted legislation increasing the real estate transfer tax on certain conveyances of real property. The legislation generally applies to conveyances made after July 1, 2019.
Background
New York State generally imposes a transfer tax on conveyances of real property located in New York State and on conveyances of a controlling interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State. The tax is currently imposed at a 0.4 percent rate on the transferred consideration, which is generally the amount paid or required to be paid for the purchase of the property that is subject to the tax. The grantor is generally liable to pay the tax, but if the grantor either failed to pay the tax or is exempt from the tax, the grantee is liable to pay the tax.
In addition to the base transfer tax, in the case of a transfer of “residential real property” worth $1 million or more, New York State generally imposes a “mansion tax” at a 1 percent rate on the consideration for the transfer. For purposes of the mansion tax, residential real property generally includes a one, two or three-family house, an individual condominium unit, or a cooperative apartment. In contrast with the base transfer tax, the grantee is generally liable for the mansion tax.
Transfers of real property in New York City also are generally subject to New York City transfer tax at a 2.625 percent rate (or 1.425 percent if the property transferred is a one, two or three-family house or an individual residential condominium unit).
Changes to the Transfer Tax
The legislation, which was passed as an alternative to a pied-à-terre tax” that would have imposed an annual tax on homes worth $5 million or more that do not serve as a buyer's primary residence, imposes additional New York State real estate transfer tax on certain conveyances made in “cities with a population of one million or more.” In light of the fact that New York City is the only city in New York State that has a population of anywhere close to one million or more, it is clear that the legislation was specifically intended to increase the rate of tax applicable to transfers of real property in New York City.
The legislation increases the rate of the base real estate transfer tax from 0.4 percent to 0.65 percent in the case of a transfer in New York City of (i) “residential real property” where the transferred consideration is $3 million or more, and (ii) any other property subject to the tax where the transferred consideration is $2 million or more. For this purpose, residential real property is defined to include the same types of properties that are subject to the mansion tax (described above).
In addition to increasing the base real estate transfer tax rate on the type of transfers described above, the legislation also creates a new transfer tax on transfers of “residential real property” in New York City where the transferred consideration is $2 million or more. The new transfer tax is imposed in addition to the base real estate transfer tax and the mansion tax. For purposes of the new transfer tax, residential real property is again defined to include the same types of properties that are subject to the mansion tax. This new transfer tax is generally imposed on the grantee, and it is imposed at varying rates that are dependent on the amount of the transferred consideration:
• Where the consideration is $2,000,000—$2,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 0.25 percent.
• Where the consideration is $3,000,000—$4,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 0.50 percent.
• Where the consideration is $5,000,000—$9,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 1.25 percent.
• Where the consideration is $10,000,000—$14,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 2.25 percent.
• Where the consideration is $15,000,000—$19,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 2.50 percent.
• Where the consideration is $20,000,000—$24,999,999.99, the additional tax rate is 2.75 percent.
• Where the consideration is $25,000,000 or more, the additional tax rate is 2.9 percent.
As a result of the increase in tax, a grantee that receives residential real property in New York City worth at least $2 million will be subject to New York State transfer tax at a rate between 1.25 percent and 3.9 percent.
As a result of the legislation, if a taxpayer sells a residential condominium unit in New York City for $25 million, the transfer will be subject to New York State transfer tax at a 4.55 percent rate consisting of (i) base real estate transfer tax imposed at a 0.65 percent rate, (ii) mansion tax imposed at a 1 percent rate, and (iii) the new transfer tax imposed at a 2.9 percent rate. Once the 1.425 percent New York City transfer tax is taken into account, the transfer would be subject to a combined State and City tax rate of 5.975 percent.
If the taxpayer instead sold commercial property located in New York City worth $25 million, the transfer would be subject to New York State transfer tax at a 0.65 percent rate since the mansion tax and the new transfer tax are not imposed on the transfer. Once the 2.625 percent New York City transfer tax is taken into account, the transfer would be subject to a combined State and City tax rate of 3.275 percent.
Although the legislation generally applies to transfers of real property made on or after July 1, 2019, the legislation does not apply to transfers made pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before April 1, 2019. However, the binding written contract must be confirmed by independent evidence. The legislation provides examples of independent evidence such as the recording of the contract or payment of a deposit.
Conclusion
The legislation has significantly increased the New York State transfer tax rate applicable to transfers of real property in New York City. Although the more punitive “pied-à-terre tax” was not enacted into law, the new legislation generally applies to any transfer of real property in New York City and is not limited to transfers of pied-à-terre's. As a result of the new legislation, it is more important than ever for taxpayers to carefully consider the transfer tax consequences of different transactions.
Ezra Dyckman is a partner at Roberts & Holland. Joshua A. Rabinovits is an associate at the firm.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
US Law Firm Leasing Up Nearly 30% Through Q3, With a Growing Number of Firms Staying in Place
3 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250