Combining self-directed Roth and Tradition IRA's in house flip

Mar 22, 2014 5 Replies

A friend of mine has a self-directed Roth IRA and a self-directed Traditional IRA, and he uses a combination of funds from both of them to buy, rehab, and then re-sell real estate (mostly single family homes, one or two a year) -- for a profit. The profits go back into his self-directed Roth and Traditional IRA's, and are either tax deferred or are tax free, depending on which IRA's the profits went back into.



I had a question and/or suggestion, and I am wondering if a future deal could be structured as follows to enable the profits to go disproportionately into the Roth rather than into the Traditional IRA.



Here's my example or suggestion using made up numbers:



The Roth has $10,000 in it, and the Traditional IRA has $90,000 in it. He buys the property in the name of the Roth for $50,000 and he has an additional $50,000 in expenses for repairs/rehab, holding costs, selling costs, etc.. So, the Roth needs a total of $100,000 to do the deal. The Roth puts up $10,000 to buy the property in the name of the Roth, and the Traditional IRA lends the Roth the remaining $90,000 at a modest but fair interest rate to pay for the purchase, repairs, etc. After all costs and expenses (including purchase price, holding costs, repairs/rehab, selling costs, and interest on the loan from the Traditional IRA to the Roth, etc), the Roth sells the property for $130,000 -- a $30,000 profit.



My question is, can the deal be done like this, where the entire $30,000 profit goes to the Roth, even though the Roth only put up $10,000 of the total cost of the project?



If so, all of the $30,000 profit would go into the Roth and would be tax free.



The Traditional IRA would earn some interest on the loan to the Roth, which would go back into the Traditional IRA and would be tax deferred. But, since the Traditional IRA did not own the property -- it only loaned money to the Roth -- the profit from the re-sale would all go to the Roth as the owner of the property.



Is this correct, or am I missing something here?



The alternative, which is how he is doing it now, would be for the Roth and the Traditional to be partners in the purchase with a $10,000/$90,000 split according to their contributions to the deal, and the profits being split



1/10 back into the Roth and 9/10 back into the Traditional IRA. But, that would mean that most of the gains from the sale would be tax deferred rather than tax free.

[snip]

Probably not. Under normal partnership rules, profits and losses are divided in proportion to the investment made. This can be varied, but there has to be an actual economic reason to change it.

I suppose it could be set up so the regular IRA lends money to the other for whatever the legal minimum interest would be, and the Roth could get the rest of the profit. But that would have to be documented with paperwork. They can't just arbitrarily allocate profits.

Thanks Stuart. That last paragraph is what I meant -- that there would be no partnership. The Roth IRA would be the sole owner of the property. The Traditional IRA would have no share in the ownership of the property -- it would just be lending money to the Roth and earning the interest on the loan.

Using self-directed IRAs to buy real estate has a number of issues to contend with. One is self-dealing. As Stu answered, all deals need to be in proportion if more than one account is involved. Using one to lend to another is walking on thin ice in terms of breaking the rules, and breaking the shell of the IRAs. Especially when there's no motive to do so except to concentrate the profits into the Roth. In your proposal, the Roth is borrowing, likely paying minimum interest, but producing all the gain. If sold before the loan is paid, the profit is still taxed even if inside the Roth. Have you considered this?

There have been many court cases of convoluted deals set up to do nothing more than shift money into one's Roth. I see here an actual underlying investment, but in an audit, the 'shifting' aspect will be analyzed very closely.

I have been looking further into this and I found something that may come into play here called "unrelated debt financed income".

Here is a link that talks about some of this:

formatting link
-- as it would relate to a tax exempt organization that borrows money for an investment - and how much of the profits can also be considered to be tax exempt. There may be parallels here that would apply to the idea that I proposed above, where a Roth IRA borrows money from a Traditional IRA to buy, rehab, and re-sell a property fro profit. One thing that is buried somewhere in the link above has to do with "working capital" - money that is loaned to the tax exempt entity that is working capital and is not a purchase money mortgage. It seemed to indicate that if, for example, a Roth IRA bought a property entirely with its own funds, and then borrowed unsecured money as "working capital" (not a mortgage or a purchase money loan) to do the repairs and cover other expenses, and then sold the property at a profit -- MAYBE the unsecured working capital loan wouldn't be counted toward "unrelated debt financed income", and wouldn't be taxable.

I am actually not concerned about the "self-dealing" issue. Both IRA's are independent of the person who funded the IRA, and neither IRA would be dealing with the person who funded the IRA, or a spouse of that person, or a descendant of that person, etc. -- which are examples of the self-dealing exclusions.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required