Can a sole LLC member rely on TAA 04B4-005's minimum-tax treatment for moving unencumbered property through himself to his revocable trust?

Plain-English summary

Do not rely on the original minimum-tax conclusion in this TAA. The Florida Department of Revenue placed an express notice at the beginning of the official PDF: “Obsolete: See Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Department of Revenue, 903 So.2d 913 (Fla. 2005).”

The rest of the document preserves the Department's superseded 2004 analysis of two proposed deeds involving an unencumbered condominium used as the taxpayer's principal residence.

What the 2004 ruling originally said

The taxpayer was the sole member of a Florida LLC whose only asset was the condominium. He proposed:

1. Conveying the condominium from the LLC to himself.
2. Conveying it from himself to his revocable trust, of which he was the sole beneficiary.

The TAA originally said each deed was subject only to minimum documentary stamp tax because beneficial ownership remained with the same individual before and after the transfers.

The original analysis relied on Kuro

Florida treated the proposal as fitting the narrow reasoning of Kuro, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 713 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The property was unencumbered, and the taxpayer's beneficial proportion did not change through the two steps.

The obsolete notice controls today

The official PDF now directs readers to the later Crescent Miami Center decision. It does not rewrite the body or state a replacement calculation.

Accordingly, the former minimum-tax answer is historical only. Current taxability must be determined from current statutes and later authority.

What this means for you

LLC owners and revocable-trust grantors

Do not structure a current deed sequence around this TAA's former beneficial-ownership analysis. The Department itself marks the ruling obsolete.

Estate-planning and real-estate advisers

Review legal title, debt, consideration, entity interests, trust terms, homestead consequences, and each deed separately under current law.

Researchers

The TAA documents a former Department position but should always be quoted with the obsolete warning and the later case citation.

Common questions

Q: What did the TAA originally conclude?
A: It said only minimum documentary stamp tax applied to both proposed deeds.

Q: Why did the original ruling say that?
A: It reasoned that the property was unencumbered and beneficial ownership remained with the same person.

Q: Is that answer current?
A: No. The official PDF labels the TAA obsolete.

Q: Which later authority does Florida identify?
A: Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Department of Revenue, 903 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2005).

Citations and references

• Fla. Stat. § 201.02(1) — documentary stamp tax on deeds transferring real property
• Kuro, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 713 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) — case used in the original historical analysis
• Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Department of Revenue, 903 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 2005) — later authority identified by the Department's obsolete notice

Source

• Landing page: Florida Tax Law Library
• Advisement: TAA 04B4-005

Original ruling text

Obsolete: See Crescent Miami Center, LLC v. Department of Revenue,
903 So.2d 913 (Fla. 2005)

SUMMARY

QUESTION: Under the scenario where a Taxpayer is proposing
transferring unencumbered real property to himself, and
subsequently transferring the property to a revocable trust
of which he is the sole beneficiary, are documentary stamp
taxes due on either transfer?

ANSWER - Based on Facts Below: Only minimum documentary
stamp tax would be due on the proposed transfers since they
fall under the provisions of the case of Kuro, Inc. v.
Department of Revenue, 713 So.2nd 1021 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998).
Applying the rationale of the Kuro opinion, the beneficial
ownership of the property before and after the transfers
would remain the same.

May 12, 2004

Re: Technical Assistance Advisement No. 04B4-005
Documentary Stamp Tax - Conveyance to Revocable Trust from
Individual
Section 201.02(1), F.S.
XXX ("Taxpayer")
XXX ("LLC")

Dear :

This is in response to your request for a Technical
Assistance Advisement postmarked March 20, 2004, pertaining to
the applicability of the Florida documentary stamp tax on a
transfer of real property.

FACTS AS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER

Taxpayer is the sole member of LLC, a Florida limited
liability company. The sole asset in LLC is a condominium
located in Florida, which is Taxpayer's principal residence.

REQUESTED ADVISEMENT

Taxpayer wishes to convey the condominium to himself and
then convey it from himself to his revocable trust, of which is
he is the sole beneficiary. The condominium itself is
unencumbered. You feel that this case falls under the
parameters of Kuro, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 713 So.2nd
1021 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998), since the property is owned in the
same proportion prior to being transferred to the trust.

DISCUSSION AND LAW

Section 201.02(1), F.S., generally imposes the documentary
stamp tax on deeds or other instruments transferring an interest
in real property at the rate of $.70 per hundred or fraction
thereof, based on the consideration given.

DETERMINATION

In this particular case, the transfers would both be
subject to the minimum documentary stamp tax. The facts fit
within the narrow confines of the Kuro decision. Applying the
rationale of the Kuro opinion, the beneficial ownership of the
property before and after the transaction would remain the same.

This response constitutes a Technical Assistance Advisement
under s. 213.22, F.S., which is binding on the Department only
under the facts and circumstances described in the request for
this advice, as specified in s. 213.22, F.S. Our response is
predicated on those facts and the specific situation summarized
above. You are advised that subsequent statutory or
administrative rule changes or judicial interpretations of the
statutes or rules upon which this advice is based may subject
similar future transactions to a different treatment from that
which is expressed in this response.

You are further advised that this response, your request
and related backup are public records under Chapter 119, F.S.,
and are subject to disclosure to the public under the conditions
of s. 213.22, F.S. Confidential information must be deleted
before public disclosure. In an effort to protect
confidentiality, we request you provide the undersigned with an
edited copy of your request for Technical Assistance Advisement,
the backup material and this response, deleting names, addresses
and any other details which might lead to identification of the
taxpayer. Your response should be received by the Department
within 15 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

Joy B. Eldred, C.P.A.
Tax Law Specialist
Technical Assistance and Dispute Resolution

JE/mh