[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-306775-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":85,"doc-detail-306775-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","wisconsins-real-estate-transfer-fee-jurisprudence-needs-repair-by-robert-willens","Wisconsin’s Real Estate Transfer Fee Jurisprudence Needs Repair - by Robert Willens","","Wisconsin’s real estate transfer fee framework is criticized through an analysis of two closely timed decisions by the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission. The article argues the decisions improperly upheld real estate transfer fees that should not have been assessed, focusing on how exemptions apply to conveyances made in connection with foreclosure or deeds in lieu of foreclosure. It examines facts involving foreclosure proceedings, related entities, and the statutory requirement that the exemption benefits a party “holding the mortgage.”",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/wisconsins-real-estate-transfer-fee-jurisprudence-needs-repair-by-robert-willens/306775/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/wisconsins-real-estate-transfer-fee-jurisprudence-needs-repair-by-robert-willens/306775.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Logic","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What issue does the article address regarding Wisconsin real estate transfer fees?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It challenges two Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission decisions that upheld real estate transfer fees the author says were legally incorrect, particularly concerning exemption eligibility for foreclosure and deeds in lieu of foreclosure.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What statutory exemption is central to the analysis?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The article focuses on Wisconsin law exempting a conveyance under foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure made “to a person holding the mortgage.”",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the author argue the exemption did not apply in the described case?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The author explains that Wells Fargo continued to hold the mortgage, while the property was conveyed to a separate subsidiary entity (MSC), so the transferee was not “the person holding the mortgage.”",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"What position did the petitioner (WILC) take, and why was it rejected?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"The petitioner argued Wells Fargo and MSC were effectively “one and the same” due to tax disregard and lender practices, but the Commission treated them as separate entities and rejected the exemption claim.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},306775,1790469634,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,93,98,103,108,113,118,122,127],{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},18,30,"letters",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":125,"slug":126},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":128,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":130},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":132},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":22,"category_id":119,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":125,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":26},1099513958762,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1000023916a998db790?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1784791008015729253","Volume 96, Number 7  May 18, 2020  \nWisconsin’s Real Estate Transfer Fee Jurisprudence Needs Repair  \nby Robert Willens  \nReprinted from Tax Notes State, May 18, 2020 , p.911  \ntax notes state  \nWisconsin’s Real Estate Transfer Fee  \nJurisprudence Needs Repair  \nby Robert Willens  \nRobert Willens is president of Robert Willens LLC, New York, and an adjunct professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School.  \nIn this article, Willens criticizes two decisions by the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission regarding real estate transfer fees.  \nIn the space of just one short week, the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission (WTAC) rendered two decisions that appear incorrect as a matter of law and, accordingly, upheld the imposition of real estate transfer fees that should not have been levied. While at this point we have become somewhat inured to seeing questionable jurisprudence in the real estate transfer tax or fee area, these two decisions —at least to this observer —stand out as particularly egregious.  \n‘Cause to Be Directed’  \nIn North Mayfair Road,1 on or about December 31, 2014, a real estate transfer return was filed reporting a conveyance of real estate from Mayfair Road LP (WILC) to the grantee, MSC, via special warranty deed. The return indicated a transfer fee due of $0 by claiming a transfer fee exemption. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue disagreed with the claim that no transfer fee was due and issued a notice of assessment of real estate transfer  \n1North Mayfair Road LP v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Dkt No.  \n17-T-154 (Wisc. Tax App. Comm. Jan. 28, 2020) .  \nfee of $32,205. While the petitioner timely appealed the assessment, the appeal was to no avail because the DOR summarily denied the petition. An appeal before the WTAC followed.  \nThe petitioner was a Wisconsin limited partnership that had fallen on hard times. In May 2014 Wells Fargo filed a summons and complaint against WILC seeking foreclosure of the property. In December 2014 a judgment of foreclosure was entered against WILC andin favor of Wells Fargo. WILC and Wells Fargo entered into a deed in lieu of foreclosure agreement (the agreement) . In December 2014, in accordance with the agreement, WILC executed a special warranty deed to MSC, a newly created single member limited liability company of which Wells Fargo was the sole member. The mortgage that was the subject of the foreclosure was not assigned to MSC. Instead, Wells Fargo continued to hold the mortgage and a satisfaction of the mortgage was duly recorded. It is important to note that while the property “came to rest” in MSC, the agreement was entered into by WILC and Wells Fargo. MSC was not a party to the agreement. Not surprisingly, lenders such as Wells Fargo commonly form special purpose subsidiary entities to acquire and hold title to properties conveyed by means of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  \nWis. Stat. section 77.22 provides that “there is hereby imposed on the grantor of real estate a real estate transfer fee” on every conveyance neither exempted nor excluded. Oneof those exemptions, found in Wis. Stat. section 77.25, provides that the fee does not apply to a conveyance under a foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure “to a person holding the mortgage.”  \nTax exemptions, deductions, and privileges, the WTAC correctly observed, are matters of  \nlegislative grace “and are strictly construed against the aggrieved taxpayer.”While the WTAC admitted that a fee is not a “tax,” it has “similar characteristics.” Accordingly, exemptions from this fee ought to be similarly narrowly construed against the claimant.  \nUnder the Wisconsin real estate transfer fee statutes,“a deed in lieu of foreclosure to the person holding the mortgage” is exempt from the fee. Here, the parties stipulated that (1) Wells Fargo held the mortgage at all times; (2) Wells Fargo did not assign, nor otherwise transfer, the mortgage to MSC; and (3) while MSC is a single member LLC, of which Wells Fargo happ","cbCaidta3C2xqAQt","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidta3C2xqAQt","pdf",320141,"English","# Wisconsin’s Real Estate Transfer Fee Jurisprudence Needs Repair\n## Background and dispute over transfer fee exemption\n## Mortgage-holder exemption and entity separateness","[{\"question\":\"What issue does the article address regarding Wisconsin real estate transfer fees?\",\"answer\":\"It challenges two Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission decisions that upheld real estate transfer fees the author says were legally incorrect, particularly concerning exemption eligibility for foreclosure and deeds in lieu of foreclosure.\"},{\"question\":\"What statutory exemption is central to the analysis?\",\"answer\":\"The article focuses on Wisconsin law exempting a conveyance under foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure made “to a person holding the mortgage.”\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author argue the exemption did not apply in the described case?\",\"answer\":\"The author explains that Wells Fargo continued to hold the mortgage, while the property was conveyed to a separate subsidiary entity (MSC), so the transferee was not “the person holding the mortgage.”\"},{\"question\":\"What position did the petitioner (WILC) take, and why was it rejected?\",\"answer\":\"The petitioner argued Wells Fargo and MSC were effectively “one and the same” due to tax disregard and lender practices, but the Commission treated them as separate entities and rejected the exemption claim.\"}]","Wisconsin’s Real Estate Transfer Fee Jurisprudence Needs Repair - by Robert Willens | PDF",1789840941]