A client has inquired about the possibility of transferring a building it owns to a whollyowned subsidiary without transferring the underlying land. I'm not yet sure why the client wants to take this approach instead of a lease or sale of the land and building, but … many years ago I reviewed a title report where this situation existed. A company transferred a building to the company's owners but excluded the land. My understanding is that this was a tax play that some people used. Is there any reason this theoretically could not be done? As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

I think it's okay as long as there is an easement or lease that allows the owner of the building to maintain the structure on the land. We saw it a good deal in the early 80's, but not much recently.