Sold
Sold
Structure a Missouri 1031 identification list under the 200 percent rule with a value ledger, candidate basket, and written notice control.
Explore
Test whether the 95 percent rule fits a Missouri 1031 exchange with closing capacity review, value modeling, and advisor sign-off before.
Explore
Coordinate a standard sell-first Missouri 1031 exchange with early QI engagement, sale closing prep, and statewide replacement sourcing.
Explore
Reverse exchange coordination for Missouri investors acquiring replacement property before the relinquished sale closes, using an accommodation.
ExploreThe three-property rule lets an exchanger identify up to three replacement candidates within the 45-day window regardless of their combined value. Strategy work here is choosing which three candidates earn a spot on that list, and in what order of priority, before the deadline forces a decision the exchanger has not fully thought through.
The rule works cleanly when a submittal package has produced two or three strong, fully diligenced candidates and the exchanger does not need a longer identification list. It is generally simpler to administer than the 200% rule because there is no combined-value ceiling to track against the START EXCHANGE REVIEW price.
Where a submittal package has produced only two or three viable candidates after screening, the three-property rule is usually the simpler path, since there is no value threshold to monitor as prices shift during negotiation.
The rule tends to fit poorly when the exchanger's search has turned up several strong candidates well beyond three, since forcing a longer list into three slots means leaving good options off the identification letter entirely.
Candidates are ranked by closing certainty first, ahead of price or location alone. A fully underwritten property with financing in hand outranks a slightly better-priced property still waiting on a lender term sheet. The exchanger keeps at least one backup candidate on the list where diligence allows, so a single failed closing does not collapse the exchange.
Ranking by closing certainty rather than by price alone is a deliberate choice, since a cheaper property that fails to close inside the exchange period is a worse outcome than a slightly more expensive one that closes on schedule.
Seller motivation is also weighed in the ranking, since a seller under time pressure of their own is generally more likely to hold firm on an agreed closing date than one with no particular urgency to complete the sale.
The following steps are worked through before the final list is submitted.
Setting a buffer ahead of the actual forty-five day deadline gives room to correct a last-minute description error without risking a late delivery.
A Missouri exchanger might identify a St. Louis metro net lease property, a Columbia or Springfield multifamily property, and a third candidate along the I-70 corridor as a backup, spreading closing risk across different lenders and title companies rather than depending on one transaction clearing cleanly.
Spreading the three slots across different lenders and title companies is a deliberate hedge, since a delay tied to one closing team does not necessarily affect the other two candidates on the list.
Mixing asset classes across the three slots, rather than identifying three similar properties, also gives the exchanger a genuine choice if market conditions shift for one asset type between identification and closing.
If diligence turns up more strong candidates than three slots allow, the strategy can shift to the 200% rule instead, provided combined value stays within the required ceiling. This decision should be finalized with the exchanger's tax advisor before the identification letter is drafted, since switching rules after filing is not an option.
Deciding which rule to use is a one-time choice made before the letter goes out, so this conversation with the tax advisor happens early enough to leave room for a change of approach if needed.
The rule-selection memo is updated to reflect whichever approach is ultimately chosen, so the reasoning behind the final identification letter stays documented in the file for later reference.
No. Unlike the 200% rule, the three-property rule has no combined-value ceiling, which is its main advantage when an exchanger has identified fewer, higher-value candidates. This makes it the simpler choice for a short, high-value list.
No. An exchanger can identify one, two, or three candidates under the rule; using all three simply builds in backup options in case a lead candidate falls through. There is no penalty for leaving a slot unused.
It can, but the switch needs to happen before the identification letter is filed and finalized with the exchanger's tax advisor, since the rule applied cannot be changed once the letter is delivered. This decision is made early for that reason.
Backups are chosen for financing and closing certainty rather than just price, so if the top-ranked candidate's closing falls through, the backup can move forward without restarting diligence from scratch. Full diligence is completed on backups, not only on the lead candidate.
The exchange fails to complete as a tax-deferred transaction if none of the identified candidates close within the exchange period, which is why the ranking process weighs closing certainty as heavily as price when the list is built.