I'm buying vacant land for $550,000 and, on the same day, separately contracting with the same builder to construct a $1,000,000 custom home on that land -- together the deal is worth $1.55 million, well over the mansion tax's $1 million threshold. But the land purchase contract and the building contract are expressly written as separate, divisible agreements with no cross-default provisions, and only the vacant land (not a finished or partially-built house) will actually be conveyed to me. Do I owe the 1% mansion tax on this land purchase?

Plain-English summary

On May 18, 1996, Mitchel H. Engel ("Petitioner") entered into two contracts with Thomas Wright Development Corp. ("Thomas Wright") on the same day: a "Land Contract" for the sale of vacant land at a price of $550,000, and a separate "Building Contract" for the construction of a home on that same land, at a price of $1,000,000. Critically, Petitioner and Thomas Wright expressly agreed that "the Land Contract and the Building Contract shall be deemed to be separate and divisible agreements" -- the two contracts contained no cross-default provisions (a default under one wouldn't automatically trigger a default under the other), and the Land Contract did not provide for the land to revert to Thomas Wright if Petitioner defaulted on the Building Contract. The vacant land itself was conveyed to Petitioner on June 13, 1996.

Why the mansion tax doesn't apply. Tax Law Section 1402-a(a) imposes an additional 1% "mansion tax" on conveyances of "residential real property" where the consideration for the entire conveyance is $1 million or more, defining residential real property to include any premises "that is or may be used in whole or in part as a personal residence," including a one, two, or three-family house, condominium unit, or cooperative apartment. The Department held that the only conveyance that actually took place between Petitioner and Thomas Wright was the June 13, 1996 conveyance of the vacant land -- and unimproved vacant land does not constitute "residential real property" under Section 1402-a(a). Since no house existed on the land at the time of conveyance (and the Building Contract for its construction was a legally separate, divisible agreement), the mansion tax doesn't apply, even though the combined value of the land and the to-be-built home ($1.55 million) far exceeds the $1 million threshold.

What this means for you

Buying vacant land and separately contracting to build a home on it can avoid the mansion tax on the land purchase, if the two deals are genuinely divisible

Structuring a land purchase and a construction contract as legally separate, divisible agreements -- with no cross-default clauses and no provision letting the land revert if the building contract falls through -- supports treating only the (non-residential) land conveyance as the taxable event, even when the land and future home together would clearly exceed the mansion tax threshold.

The mansion tax looks at what's physically conveyed, not the total economic value of a package deal

Even though Petitioner's overall commitment to Thomas Wright totaled $1.55 million, the Department focused narrowly on what was actually deeded to Petitioner on the conveyance date -- unimproved land, not a residence -- rather than aggregating the land price with the separate construction contract price.

Genuine legal separation between contracts matters more than how a deal is marketed or bundled

If a land contract and building contract are cross-defaulted, allow the land to revert on a building-contract breach, or are otherwise legally intertwined, a later challenge to this kind of structure could treat the arrangement as a single residential conveyance -- the explicit, enforceable separateness of the two contracts here was central to the Department's conclusion.

Common questions

Q: If I buy vacant land for $600,000 and separately contract to build a $500,000 house on it (totaling over $1 million), do I owe the mansion tax on the land purchase?
A: Not if the land purchase and building contracts are genuinely separate and divisible (no cross-default provisions, no reversion of the land tied to the building contract) -- only the vacant land itself is conveyed, and vacant land isn't "residential real property" under the mansion tax statute.

Q: Does it matter that the land and building contracts were signed on the same day with the same builder?
A: Not on its own -- what matters is whether the contracts are legally divisible from each other, not the timing or common counterparty.

Q: If my land purchase contract lets the seller take back the land if I default on my separate construction contract, would that change the analysis?
A: Likely yes -- a reversion provision tying the land back to the building contract would undercut the "separate and divisible agreements" characterization that this ruling relied on.

Citations and references

Statutes, guidance, and case law:

• Section 1402-a(a) of the Tax Law

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/real_estate_tran_ao_1996.htm
• Opinion: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/advisory_opinions/real_estate/a96_14r.pdf

Original ruling text

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance

Taxpayer Services Division
Technical Services Bureau

TSB-A-96 (14) R
Real Estate
Transfer Tax
October 24, 1996

STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE
ADVISORY OPINION

PETITION NO. M960715A

On July 15, 1996, the Department of Taxation and Finance received a Petition for Advisory
Opinion from Mitchel Engel, c/o Neil Garfinkel, Esq., 370 Lexington Ave., Suite 802, New York,
N.Y., 10017.
The issue raised by Petitioner, Mitchel H. Engel, is whether the additional real estate transfer
tax (the "additional tax") is imposed upon the conveyance of vacant land coupled with the execution
of a contract to construct a home on the same land (the "building contract").
Petitioner submits the following facts as the basis for this Advisory Opinion. On May 18,
1996, Petitioner and Thomas Wright Development Corp. ("Thomas Wright") entered into a contract
for the sale of vacant land ("Land Contract"). The contract price of the land was $550,000. On the
same day, Petitioner and Thomas Wright entered into a contract for the construction of a home on
the land that was the subject of the land contract. The contract price for the construction of the home
is $1,000,000. Petitioner and Thomas Wright both expressly agreed "the Land Contract and the
Building Contract shall be deemed to be separate and divisible agreements." Petitioner states that
the Land Contract and the Building Contract did not contain cross-default provisions. Also, the Land
Contract does not provide for the reversion of the land in the event of a default under the Building
Contract. The vacant land was conveyed to Petitioner on June 13, 1996.
Applicable Law
Section 1402-a(a) of Article 31 of the Tax Law imposes the additional tax on each
conveyance of residential real property or interest therein when the consideration for the entire
conveyance is $1 million or more. Section 1402-a(a) sets forth that the phrase "residential real
property" shall include any premises that is or may be used in whole or in part as a personal
residence, and shall include a one, two, or three-family house, an individual condominium unit, or
a cooperative apartment unit. The rate of the additional tax is one percent of the consideration or part
thereof attributable to the residential real property.
Conclusion
Based on the facts of the Petition, the only conveyance that took place between Thomas
Wright and Petitioner is the conveyance of the vacant land on June 13, 1996. Since the conveyance

-2­
TSB-A-96 (14) R
Real Estate
Transfer Tax
October 24, 1996

of unimproved land does not constitute the conveyance of residential real property in accordance
with section 1402-a(a) of the Tax Law, such conveyance is not subject to the additional tax.

DATED: October 24, 1996

/s/
John W. Bartlett
Deputy Director
Technical Services Bureau

NOTE: The opinions expressed in Advisory Opinions
are limited to the facts set forth therein.