[pdonis]

> For purpose of taxes, that is still treated as a sale in the earlier year, right?

To the best of my knowledge, yes, the date of closing, which is the date on which the deed is executed, is the date of sale for tax purposes. Note, however, that at least in the US, the IRS doesn't check what you claim the date of sale is unless you are audited, and I never have been. What would happen in an audit under your hypothetical, I can't say.

> a closing at an attorney's office with delayed recording has the same ambiguity under both systems.

Yes, that's why I asked if such a closing is even allowed under a Torrens system--it seems like it would defeat a key purpose of the system, which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what.

[mindslight]

I've actually personally dealt with a state's tax authority for a situation where the transfer date was significant, and it was never questioned.

> which is to make sure that the land registry's records always are the "single source of truth" for who owns what.

I think you're coming at this from a tech perspective of fully authoritative digital databases a little too much. Look at the ambiguity that remains after a non-Torrens transfer, and after a Torrens transfer. Eliminating that is the main point of Torrens title. It still can't solve the entire problem and be a "single source of truth" the way we see things in the tech world.

That Florida statute would seem to eliminate a good chunk of that ambiguity as well, but not all.

[pdonis]

The IRS is Federal, not state. State tax codes are generally much easier to comprehend. But to describe the US Federal tax code as Byzantine would be to give too much credit for obfuscation to the Byzantines. :-) That's why it's so hard to predict what the IRS would do in the case of an audit (and why there is a thriving industry of tax preparers who claim, with varying degrees of justification, to be able to help you navigate the system).

[mindslight]

That's a weird tangential rant. There is a difference between tax codes and general principles of accounting. I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well.

Also no, state tax codes can be pretty complex as well. On this particular issue, I had trouble finding an attorney who would represent me for less than $10k (while still equivocating about the merits of my position!), so I represented myself. It took a twenty minute phone call with two state tax agents to come to an amicable agreement. A++ would get taxed again.

I've previously been one to echo negative sentiment about government bureaucracy, but the times I've had to deal with it (not the IRS thankfully but rather a few other federal agencies) the agents have been generally helpful and empowered to act authoritatively. They're still part of a bureaucracy of course, with some of the laughable things that entails, but ultimately still human beings with some leeway to act.

For the most part I think the negative narrative has been informed by corporate bureaucracies getting really bad (IVRs, offshoring, bottomless ticket systems, now LLMs, etc) and so we're all assuming that the government simply must be worse. But it's not. (well maybe it is now after the DOGE arsonists brought so-called "corporate efficiency", I don't actually know)

[pdonis]

> general principles of accounting.

I'm not sure what those have to do with this question, since it's a legal question, not an accounting question.

> I feel pretty confident that if a state tax authority agrees with the deed date being the transfer date, then the IRS would as well.

In many cases a state tax authority wouldn't even be involved, since many states don't tax capital gains (which is what would be involved with a home sale) while the US Federal government does.

> negative sentiment about government bureaucracy

Evidently your experiences with government bureaucracies have been very, very different from mine.

[mindslight]

This turned very argumentative very fast. I had thought we were having an amicable discussion about the semantics of real estate titles.

I mentioned my experience with a state tax authority because it is direct personal experience about this very topic. I don't know why you turned that into being about the IRS, and are now even seemingly rejecting the state tax authority "being involved". The date of the transfer was directly relevant to my disagreement with the state tax authority, and they didn't question that date being the deed date even though the recording happened some time later. Either believe me or not, I don't care.

> Evidently your experiences with government bureaucracies have been very, very different from mine.

Sure? I'm not saying they were a some pleasant, responsive, quick, and casual experience - rather much less bad than I was expecting. And dealing with some corporate bureaucracies has been much worse, with constant transferring and calling back every week to check on status and make sure a ticket didn't get stuck and timeout, etc.

[pdonis]

> I don't know why you turned that into being about the IRS

Um, because that's what I orginally began talking about when the topic of taxes came up? Go back and look at the first post of mine in this subthread where I explicitly mentioned the IRS. You brought up state tax authorities after that, not before.

> and are now even seemingly rejecting the state tax authority "being involved".

If you sell a home in a state that doesn't tax capital gains--such as the state I live in, and indeed every state in which i have sold a home--then the state tax authority is not involved. Which is what I already explicitly said.

> Sure?

Quite sure. I never assumed your experience was "pleasant, responsive, quick and casual"--indeed, your "much less bad than I was expecting" was how I already had read your previous post. And that experience is, as I said, very, very different from experiences I have had with government bureaucracies (not all such experiences, but enough of them that they are not outliers), for which the most charitable description I could give would be "much, much worse than I was expecting".

> dealing with some corporate bureaucracies has been much worse

I certainly have had bad experiences with corporate bureaucracies as well, and I was in no way implying that they are any better than government bureaucracies. My average experience with both is probably about the same.