Transfer Tax and the City
On April 12, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed New York's 2019-2020 budget into law. One section of the new law will increase the transfer tax rates that apply to real estate transactions in New York City. The new transfer tax rates are effective for property transfers on or after July 1, 2019.
June 21, 2019 at 01:20 PM
10 minute read
On April 12, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed New York's 2019-2020 budget into law. One section of the new law will increase the transfer tax rates that apply to real estate transactions in New York City. The combined New York State and New York City transfer tax rates may approach 6% of the sales price for some residential transactions.
The new transfer tax rates are effective for property transfers on or after July 1, 2019. There is a limited grandfathering rule that exempts transfers made pursuant to a binding written contract entered into before or on April 1, 2019, provided that the contract's execution date is confirmed by a recording of the contract, payment of a deposit, or other independent evidence.
|Introduction
New York State (NYS) and New York City (NYC) both impose transfer taxes on real estate transactions. Before the new law, there were three different transfer taxes on transactions of “residential real property,” which generally includes a one-, two-, or three-family house, an individual condominium unit, or a cooperative apartment unit. Multifamily properties with four or more units are considered non-residential real properties and are subject to different tax rates discussed below.
The three transfer taxes for residential real property under prior law were:
(1) The NYS transfer tax of 0.4% of the total consideration for NYS property,
(2) The NYS additional transfer tax (sometimes called the “mansion tax”) of 1.0%, if the consideration is $1 million or more for NYS property, and
(3) The NYC transfer tax of 1.0% for consideration of $500,000 or less, or 1.425% if the consideration is more than $500,000, for NYC property.
As a result, for NYC residential real properties, the tax rates under prior law for different levels of consideration were as indicated in Chart 1:
CHART 1 | ||||
Consideration | NYC Transfer Tax (paid by seller) | NYS Transfer Tax (paid by seller) | NYS Mansion Tax (paid by buyer) | Total Transfer Taxes |
Up to $500,000 | 1.0% | 0.40% | 0% | 1.40% |
$500,000.01 to $999,999.99 | 1.425% | 0.40% | 0% | 1.825% |
$1,000,000 or more | 1.425% | 0.40% | 1.0% | 2.825% |
The consideration is generally the gross sales price of the residential real property, though sometimes reduced by any continuing mortgages on the property. The NYS and NYC transfer taxes are legally imposed on the seller, while the NYS mansion tax is legally imposed on the buyer; there is sometimes joint and several liability on the other party if the tax is not paid. The tax incidence is factored into the price as a practical matter, and some residential condominium transactions require the buyer to pay all taxes.
Example 1: Miranda has a growing family and decides to move to Brooklyn, so she purchases a brownstone for $5 million. The total NYS and NYC transfer taxes are $141,250 (2.825%), of which $91,250 (1.825%) is paid by the seller and $50,000 (1.0%) is paid by Miranda.
New York State's new law made two changes that effectively apply only to properties in New York City. First, the NYS transfer tax is increased from 0.4% to 0.65% for any transfer of NYC residential real property with $3 million or more of consideration, or any transfer of other NYC real property with $2 million or more of consideration.
Second, a new NYS supplemental transfer tax is imposed on any transfer of NYC residential real property with consideration of $2 million or more, at increasingly higher rates. The NYS supplemental transfer tax is imposed on the buyer, like the NYS mansion tax. As a result, for NYC residential real properties, the tax rates for different levels of consideration under the new law are as indicated in Chart 2:
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 AllMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Federal Sex Crimes Charges
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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