• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

CARNM

Commercial Association of REALTORS® - CARNM New Mexico

  • Property Search
    • Search Properties
      • For Sale
      • For Lease
      • For Sale or Lease
      • Start Your Search
    • Location & Type
      • Albuquerque
      • Rio Rancho
      • Las Cruces
      • Santa Fe
      • Industry Types
  • Members
    • New Member
      • About Us
      • Getting Started in Commercial
      • Join CARNM
      • Orientation
    • Resources
      • Find A Broker
      • Code of Ethics
      • Governing Documents
      • NMAR Forms
      • CARNM Forms
      • RPAC
      • Needs & Wants
      • CARNM Directory
      • REALTOR® Benefits
      • Foreign Broker Violation
    • Designations
      • CCIM
      • IREM
      • SIOR
    • Issues/Concerns
      • FAQ
      • Ombuds Process
      • Professional Standards
      • Issues/Concerns
      • Foreign Broker Violation
  • About
    • About
      • About Us
      • Join CARNM
      • Sponsors
      • Contact Us
    • People
      • 2026 Board Members
      • Past Presidents
      • REALTORS® of the Year
      • President’s Award Recipients
      • Founder’s Award Recipients
    • Issues/Concerns
      • FAQ
      • Ombuds Process
      • Professional Standards
      • Issues/Concerns
      • Foreign Broker Violation
  • Education
    • Courses
      • Register
      • All Education
    • Resources
      • NMREC Licensing
      • Code of Ethics
      • NAR Educational Opportunities
      • CCIM Education
      • IREM Education
      • SIOR Educuation
  • News & Events
    • News
      • All News
      • Market Trends
    • Events
      • All Events Calendar
      • Education
      • CCIM Events
      • LIN Marketing Meeting
      • Thank Yous
  • CARNM Login
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Archives for April 2019

Relocating Retirees: Where Americans are Moving to Retire

April 19, 2019 by CARNM

About 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 every day, according to data from the Government Accountability Office, and some who are retiring are packing their bags and relocating.

According to United Van Lines’ National Movers Study, which analyzed its nearly 27,000 customers’ state-to-state migration patterns over the past year, many retirees sought destinations in the West – meaning Florida surprisingly was not the top location.

New Mexico (43%):

This was the first year New Mexico topped the list. Forty-three percent of moves to New Mexico were related to retirement, while 60 percent of people moving there were between the ages of 55 and 74. The cost of living in the state is 3 percent less than the national average, while income taxes are low.

Florida (39%):

While it did not make the top spot this year, Florida ranked second with 39 percent of moves into the state being retirement related. Aside from the warm weather and beach communities, Floridians are not subject to state income taxes.

Arizona (37%):

Trailing Florida slightly, about 37 percent of moves to Arizona last year were made based on retirement-related decisions. Arizona has perpetually ranked high as a destination for retiring workers.

Here are the states that rounded out the top 10:

South Carolina (37%)

Idaho (34%)

Maine (33%)

Vermont (31%)

Nevada (29%)

Wyoming (27%)

Montana (26%)

On the other hand, people were moving out of some states at a much higher rate than others. The top states relocating retirees moved from last year were Connecticut and New Jersey.

By: Brittany De Lea (Fox Business)
Click here to view source article.

Filed Under: All News

NAR Slapped With Second Class-Action Lawsuit to End Buyer Broker Compensation

April 18, 2019 by CARNM

Suit alleges mandatory fees for buyer’s brokers violate anti-trust laws.

A second class-action lawsuit has been filed in protest of the buyer broker compensation rules set forth by the National Association of Realtors.
The suit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Monday by Minnesota-based corporation Sawbill Strategic, alleges that NAR, Realogy, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams violated federal antitrust laws by requiring property sellers to pay the buyer’s broker an inflated fee.
The suit is nearly identical to one filed last month by a Minnesota home seller, which NAR called “baseless” and filled with “an abundance of false claims.”
The suit alleges that the defendants conspired to drive up seller costs and reduce competition by requiring a home seller to pay compensation to the buyer’s broker, even though their involvement in the transaction is minimal.
According to the suit, NAR’s Commission Rule maintains a commission requirement for buyer’s brokers of 2.5-3% of the home’s sale price. This has not changed in recent years, even as buyers increasingly turn to online listing sites to find their homes and often only retain a broker once a property has been selected.
The suit alleges that buyer broker compensation rules have remained intact despite their changing role in the home purchase transaction because of a conspiracy among the defendants.
It also notes that in markets abroad – like the U.K., Germany, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand – buyer broker fees are paid by the buyer rather than the seller and that buyers pay brokers less than half the rate paid in the U.S.
“Defendants and their co-conspirators possess market power through control local MLSs, which are databases of properties listed for sale in a particular geographic region,” the complaint states. “A majority of homes in the United States are sold on such MLSs. Through their control of the MLSs, Defendants and their co-conspirators have market power in the local markets for real estate broker services.”
NAR also said this complaint was baseless and contains false claims.
“The U.S. courts have routinely found that Multiple Listing Services are pro-competitive and benefit consumers by creating great efficiencies in the home-buying and selling process,” said NAR’s VP of Communications, Mantill Williams. “The market for the brokerage of real estate is extremely competitive – to the benefit of buyers and sellers alike.”
“As courts have long recognized, the MLS system in our country promotes efficiency and helps to advance the best interests of all the clients served by the Realtor members of NAR,” Williams continued. “We believe that the lawsuit fomented by several plaintiffs’ class action law firms is completely without merit. We will defend the challenged policies, and we are confident that we will prevail.”
By: Jessica Guerin (Housing Wire)
Click here to view source article.

Filed Under: All News

Opportunity Zones VS 1031 Exchanges

April 18, 2019 by CARNM

The new program offers another route to postpone or eliminate taxable gains.

While the tax benefits of Section 1031 exchanges in commercial real estate are well-known to most real estate professionals, the new qualified opportunity zone program now offers another approach to deferring or eliminating taxable gain.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, code sections 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2, created qualified opportunity zones to encourage investment in specific economically distressed areas across the U.S. This new type of investment allows taxpayers to defer or possibly exclude capital gains from taxation.
The opportunity zone refers to investment in a qualified opportunity fund, or QOF. Opportunity zone investing occurs within a fund that is qualified under the code and regulations.
Qualified opportunity zone investments in commercial property can be similar to 1031 exchanges, to defer taxes, but the differences in tax implications can be significant when there is a disposition of the property.  The dispositions might utilize an opportunity zone investment, an exchange, or a sale. Although favorable tax benefits may be generated from dispositions that are followed by investments in opportunity zone areas, this approach is only one option. Taxpayers and advisers also should examine tax-deferred exchanges, sales, and other approaches, rather than assuming that an opportunity zone is the best alternative, even if there are potential tax savings.
While this discussion focuses on real estate, related principles and issues may be applicable to investments in qualified opportunity zones in personal property as well. However, the federal tax law no longer allows 1031 tax deferral for personal property; the exchange must involve real estate.
Laws dealing with opportunity zones are being developed. The lack of well-established case law, regulations, and other guidance for investments in qualified opportunity zones creates risks  –  risks that should be considered carefully before investing in opportunity zones.

Alternatives When Disposing of Real Estate

The 1031 exchange program provides for non-recognition of gain or loss for exchanges of qualified, like-kind real estate. The 1031 deferral does not apply if the property exchanged is inventory property held for sale by the taxpayer.
Imagine that John owns Property X, and he is undertaking an exchange with Jane for Property Y. This is not a qualified 1031 tax-deferred exchange for John if he holds Property X primarily for sale (dealer) or if he holds Property Y primarily for sale.
An opportunity zone deferral also would not be applicable if the property in question is held primarily for sale.
If the exchange was qualified under 1031, the 1031 law allows for certain delays, such as a case where John will transfer Property X (relinquished property) immediately, but will receive the replacement property (Y), sometime in the future, within specific time limits. Opportunity zone rules also allow for a delay to invest funds in the qualified opportunity zone.
Both 1031 exchanges and opportunity zones also have restrictions when some of the parties to the transaction are related.

Deferral or Exclusion of Taxable Income

Another consideration when disposing of property, even by a sale, is the reinvestment of those funds in qualified properties in an opportunity zone. Investing in a QOF is required to gain the tax benefits under the program.
Benefits of investing in a QOF include:

  • The seller, if qualified, can defer gain from the sale. For example, a taxpayer selling stock at a gain of $1,000 can defer the tax on such gain by a proper qualified opportunity zone reinvestment.
  • If the taxpayer properly invests the gain in a qualified opportunity zone via a QOF, the taxpayer could be allowed an exclusion of up to 15 percent of the deferred gain.
  • If the taxpayer holds the investment in the QOF for at least 10 years, all the capital gain generated since the reinvestment can be excluded, assuming all the program requirements are met.

Section 1031 exchanges differ from QOFs  in many ways:

  • A 1031 investment does not require reinvestment in a specific area of the U.S., as long as it is in the U.S. Alternatively, by definition, the QOF must be in a qualified zone.
  • The structure of a 1031 exchange requires a good deal of formality, dealing only with like-kind property. The type of property in a QOF has a broader range that can involve real estate or personal property. However,  both 1031 exchanges and QOFs have additional requirements. For example, QOF property must be acquired after Dec. 31, 2017.
  • Section 1031 requires an investment in trade or business property, while the QOF has more flexibility.
  • In a QOF, only the gain (not the full sales price) needs to be reinvested in a QOF to come within the deferral rule.
  • As a rule, under 1031 exchanges, the entity transferring the relinquished property also must be the one obtaining the replacement property. For example, John could not transfer Property X under the 1031 exchange program and then have his corporation acquire the replacement property. A QOF provides more flexibility for the investor who sold, for example, a partnership interest then invested in a QOZ entity.
  • Delayed exchanges are permissible in some cases, which allow for the involvement of other parties and possibly an intermediary. As such, they provide 1031 transactions with flexibility. Section 1031 exchanges normally allow for a maximum of 180 days to complete the transaction, generally from the disposition date of the relinquished property, such as Property X, to a reinvestment in the replacement Property Y. The 180-day timing also can apply to the QOF in some cases. However, in the QOF, the seller can take possession and control of the cash from the sale; such cash control is not allowed in a 1031 exchange.

The QOF may have more flexibility for investors, assuming the investor is willing to move to a QOF and away from, in many cases, personal control of the assets. This lack of control also can create some liquidity issues for the investor in the qualified opportunity zone.
Costs in undertaking these transactions include those associated with being involved in a qualified opportunity zone, such as the fees charged by the QOZ and the costs for the use of an intermediary in 1031.
Most dispositions are structured as sales. The sale may be formulated as a cash sale or by an installment sale, allowing the seller to spread income over time as payments are received. But an outright sale has its advantages and  drawbacks when compared to dispositions centered around the exchange or QOF.
Each approach to limiting taxes in disposing of property has its benefits under federal income tax laws. While limiting or avoiding taxes is attractive, as well as full exclusion of the gain, selling for cash improves flexibility in investing. Cash normally is available on a traditional cash sale, but not necessarily on a 1031 exchange or the QOF investment.
Other important issues to consider when choosing the form of disposition include determining management issues for the property; refinancing options; dealing with others in the investment; timing of dispositions and acquisitions; control over decisions; and the requirement to stay invested in the qualified opportunity zone to gain tax benefits. The geographic areas to invest in and the type of property to select are additional factors with 1031 and the QOF.
While QOFs add another alternative for taxpayers and planners when considering the best approach to dispose of property, the decision is complex. The taxpayer must carefully weigh all factors, not only the tax benefits, to find the right option for a particular situation.

By: CCIM Institute
Click here to view source article.

Filed Under: All News

Commercial Lending Survey

April 18, 2019 by CARNM

Download (PDF 1.94 MB)

Highlights

The 2019 survey on commercial lending takes place in an economic environment marked by slightly higher interest rates and a lower level of bank reserves held by depository institutions that underpin the level of lending.

  • 56% of respondents reported an increase in net operating income in 2018, a decrease from 65 percent in the previous year’s survey.
  • 38% of respondents reported tighter lending conditions in 2018, up from 35 percent in 2017, with a higher fraction for retail stores.
  • 65% of respondents reported the client used debt financing to purchase a property, with higher reliance on debt financing for suburban offices and retail malls.
  • 5% to 7% was the average interest rate on loans.

By: NAR
Click here to view source article.

Filed Under: All News

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 8
  • Go to Next Page »
  • Search Property
  • Join CARNM
  • CARNM Login
  • NMAR Forms
  • All News
  • All Events
  • Education
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • FAQ
  • Issues/Concerns
6739 Academy Road NE, Ste 310
Albuquerque, NM 87109
admin@carnm.realtor(505) 503-7807

© 2026, Content: © 2021 Commercial Association of REALTORS® New Mexico. All rights reserved. Website by CARRISTO