Real Property Transfer Tax

• Overview, Forms, and Instructions

• Statutes

• Regulations

• Statements of Audit Procedures

• Redacted Letter Rulings

• Recent Tribunal Decisions:

  The “Recent Tribunal Decisions” section of the NYC Tax Law Library solely contains recent published decisions from the Appeals Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library does not contain any such decisions from prior to 2003 and does not contain any determinations from the ALJ Division of the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal. The NYC Tax Law Library also does not contain any NYS Court Decisions, even in instances where Appeals Division decisions that are included in the library were the subject of further appellate review in the New York State courts. The summaries of the decisions included below are the same as those that are publicly provided by the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal and are not the work product of Kalish Law LLC.

  105-02 FOREST HILLS, LLC, et. al. TAT(E) 20-18 & 20-19 (RP) (September 3, 2025)

  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS CORRECT TO APPLY THE STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE TO A TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY BY DEED TO AN LLC FOLLOWED BY THE TRANSFER OF A MINORITY MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO A THIRD PARTY, BUT MISSAPPLIED THE "MERE CHANGE" EXEMPTION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-2106.b(8). THE ALJ FAILED TO REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE "MERE CHANGE" EXEMPTION BY THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MINORITY MEMBERSHIP INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE THIRD PARTY. THE ALJ DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED IN PART, RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED AND THE NOTICES WERE SUSTAINED.

  CT 157-162 LLC., et al. TAT(E) 21-5 & 21-6 (RP) (October 6, 2023)

  THE ACTING CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY DETERMINATION DISMISSING THE PETITIONS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, BECAUSE THEY WERE FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-2116(a) REQUIRES THE NOTICES TO BE MAILED TO THE ADDRESS SHOWN ON THE LAST RPTT RETURN FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPORTED TRANSFER. THE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION WERE PROPERLY MAILED TO THAT ADDRESS, AS EVIDENCED BY POSTMARKED U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FORMS 3800.

  PATRICK MCCAULEY TAT(E)20-8(RP) (February 14, 2023)

  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DETERMINATION CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER OF TWO LEGALLY SEPARATE TWO-FAMILY HOUSES WAS TO BE TREATED AS THE TRANSFER OF A FOUR-FAMILY HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPLICABLE TAX RATE ON THE TRANSFER, AND GRANTING SUMMARY DETERMINATION TO RESPONDENT, WAS REVERSED. THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WAS CANCELED AND PETITIONER’S EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED.

  JAMIE HUANG TAT(E)18-19(RP) (January 25, 2022)

  THE EXCEPTION APPEALED THE DETERMINATION OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE (CALJ) DATED , WHICH DISMISSED THIS MATTER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION (ALJ DIVISION) ON THE GROUNDS THAT "THE PETITION FOR HEARING WAS PREMATURELY FILED." SINCE PETITIONER DID NOT, IN FACT, FILE A PETITION WITH THE CONCILIATION BUREAU, THE DETERMINATION, THEREFORE, IS IN ERROR, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS MATTER ON THE MERITS. THE EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED, AND THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE ALJ DIVISION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION.

  VCP ONE PARK REIT LLC, VCP ONE PARK PARALLEL REIT LLC, AND ONE PARK AVENUE MEZZ PARTNERS LLC TAT(E)14-26(RP) (February 16, 2018)

  THE TRANSACTION DID NOT QUALIFY AS A REIT TRANSFER UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CODE §11-2102.e(2) BECAUSE THE REIT INTERESTS RECEIVED DID NOT EQUAL AT LEAST 40% OF THE EQUITY INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY OR ECONOMIC INTEREST IN PROPERTY CONVEYED. THEREFORE, THE RPTT DUE ON THE TRANSFER MUST BE CALCULATED AT THE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE 2.625% RATE. IN ADDITION, THE PAYMENT BY THE GRANTEES OF THE RPTT MUST BE INCLUDED IN CONSIDERATION USING THE CALCULATION CALLED FOR IN RPTT RULE §23-02 CONSIDERATION (2).

  JAMESTOWN, L.P., AS SUCCESSOR TO JAMESTOWN CHELSEA MARKET, L.P. TAT(E)14-8(RP) (January 31, 2018)

  A REQUIRED RPTT PAYMENT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE CHECK WAS DELIVERED TO THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED WAS NO LATER THAN . THUS, THE RPTT WAS PAID NO LATER THAN . AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE FOR A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT OF RPTT PAID HAD TO BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE RPTT. ONE YEAR FROM  WAS , DETERMINED BY COUNTING 365 DAYS STARTING WITH . THE FACT THAT 2012 WAS A LEAP YEAR IS DISREGARDED UNDER GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW §58. THUS, THE RPTT REFUND REQUEST FILED ON  WAS TIME-BARRED.

  VESTRY ACQUISITION LLC TAT(E)15-14(RP) (December 1, 2017)

  REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX - PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTION OF A CONDOMINIUM UNIT TO A MEMBER OF PETITIONER WAS 25% EXEMPT AS A MERE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX BASED ON THE MEMBER'S PERCENTAGE IN PETITIONER AS SET FORTH IN PETITIONER'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT.

  GKK 2 HERALD LLC TAT(E)13-25(RP) (July 15, 2016)

  A SERIES OF ACTIONS OCCURRING ON  REPRESENTED STEPS IN A SINGLE, INTEGRATED TRANSACTION WHEREBY PETITIONER CONVEYED ITS TENANT-IN-COMMON INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO 2 HERALD OWNER LLC IN A TAXABLE TRANSACTION FOR PURPOSES OF THE RPTT IN EXCHANGE FOR CASH AND RELIEF FROM LIABILITIES. THE STEP TRANSACTION DOCTRINE APPLIES TO TREAT THE SERIES OF ACTIONS AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION NOT EXEMPT FROM RPTT EITHER AS A MERE CHANGE IN FORM OF OWNERSHIP OR AS A TRANSFER OF A NON-CONTROLLING INTEREST IN PROPERTY

  1465-69-71 BUSHWICK AVE LLC TAT(E)14-14(RP) (January 19, 2016)

  THE CONCILIATION BUREAU OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY MAILED A CONCILIATION DECISION TO PETITIONER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON , STARTING THE RUNNING OF THE 90-DAY LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION WITH THE NEW YORK CITY TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE MAILING OF THE PETITION ON  WAS UNTIMELY AND THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION.

  JUNGIL SONG TAT (E) 06-12 (RP) (September 29, 2008)

  A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE IS TAXABLE, REGARDLESS OF THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSFER. ONE-HALF THE MORTGAGE IS TAXABLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY FROM PETITIONER TO PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE WAS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER'S WIFE GUARANTEED THE MORTGAGE PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID FOR THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE TRANSFER.

  RHM-88, LLC TAT (E) 01-23 (RP) (January 4, 2007)

  THE ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") ON A TRANSACTION INVOLVING A SUBLEASE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR ALL PORTIONS OF TWO U.N. PLAZA CONSTITUTING THE UNITED NATIONS PLAZA HOTEL (THE "SUBLEASE") WAS TIME-BARRED. THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ASSESSING RPTT AND THE WAIVERS DID NOT COVER THE SUBLEASE. THERE WAS NO MUTUAL MISTAKE OF THE PARTIES THAT WOULD REQUIRE REFORMATION OF THE WAIVERS TO INCLUDE THE SUBLEASE. FURTHERMORE, AS THERE WAS NO AFFIRMATIVE WRONGDOING ON PETITIONER'S PART IN THE FORM OF FALSE STATEMENTS OR MISLEADING SILENCES, PETITIONER WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS TIME-BARRED.

  DAVID GRUBER TAT (E) 03-7 (RP) (September 12, 2006)

  THE SALE OF THREE CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS WAS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, THE TRANSFERS OF THE THREE UNITS DID NOT COMPRISE THE CONVEYANCE OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT. THUS, THE THREE NOTICES OF DETERMINATION ASSESSING RPTT AT THE HIGHER TAX RATES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE DISMISSED. HOWEVER, UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE. PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECUSE A TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONER WAS RENDERED MOOT BECAUSE PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF NECESSITY THAT COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW OF THE APPEAL. OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL, HAVING ONLY ONE NON-DISQUALIFIED COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE UNABLE TO ISSUE A DECISION.

  DANIEL AND SHEILA ROSENBLUM TAT (E) 01-31 (RP) (September 12, 2006)

  THE SALE OF A DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM UNIT (THE "RESIDENTIAL UNIT") AND A NONCONTIGUOUS SUITE UNIT LOCATED ON A SEPARATE FLOOR OF THE SAME BUILDING AND RESTRICTED TO USE AS A RESIDENCE FOR A NONPAYING GUEST OR DOMESTIC EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). THE SUITE UNIT WAS NOT A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUT WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SAME RESIDENCE AS THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE APPROPRIATE TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO THE SALE OF A STORAGE UNIT AND A WINE CELLAR UNIT AS PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION WAS NOT AT ISSUE IN THE CASE. THUS, PETITIONERS' REFUND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RPTT PAID WITH RESPECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE WAS GRANTED WITHOUT INTEREST. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE. WHILE A TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED HERSELF FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE REVIEW OF THIS CASE BECAUSE OF HER PARTICIPATION IN THE ISSUANCE OF A LETTER RULING TO PETITIONERS WHILE THE COMMISSIONER SERVED AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TAX LAW AND CONCILIATIONS FOR THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT TO THE TRIBUNAL, SHE MUST, PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF NECESSITY, PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW. OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL, HAVING ONLY ONE NON-DISQUALIFIED COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE UNABLE TO ISSUE A DECISION.

  CAMBRIDGE LEASING CORPORATION TAT (E) 03-11 (RP) (September 12, 2006)

  THE SALE OF A DUPLEX APARTMENT COMPRISING TWO CONDOMINIUM UNITS THAT WERE PHYSICALLY COMBINED PRIOR TO THE SALE AND A NONCONTIGUOUS MAID'S ROOM LOCATED ON A SEPARATE FLOOR OF THE SAME BUILDING WAS SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") AT THE LOWER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED TO THE CONVEYANCES OF ONE, TWO OR THREE FAMILY HOUSES AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(i) OF THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (THE "CODE"). THE MAID'S ROOM WAS NOT A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUT WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SAME RESIDENCE AS THE DUPLEX APARTMENT. THUS, PETITIONER'S REFUND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RPTT PAID AT THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE WAS GRANTED. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER ANY SALE OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FROM THE SAME SELLER TO THE SAME BUYER COULD EVER BE SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAX RATE SCHEDULE ACCORDED "ALL OTHER CONVEYANCES" PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-2102.a(9)(ii) OF THE CODE.

  CORWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL. TAT (E) 00-39 (RP),et al (June 2, 2006)

  THE DENIALS OF REFUNDS OF REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ("RPTT") CLAIMED BY FIVE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF ALL THE STOCK IN FIVE SUBSIDIARY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WERE AFFIRMED. EACH OF THE FIVE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS OWNED ONE OF FIVE DELAWARE CORPORATIONS WHICH TOGETHER HELD THE ENTIRE OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THAT OWNED THE FOUR SEASONS HOTEL IN THE CITY. IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS MULTI-TIER TRANSACTION IS A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST IN AN ENTITY THAT OWNS REAL PROPERTY, THE DEPARTMENT IS PERMITTED TO LOOK THROUGH LAYERS OF PASSIVE, SINGLE-PURPOSE ENTITIES TO TREAT THE TRANSFER AS A TRANSFER OF A CONTROLLING ECONOMIC INTEREST IN AN ENTITY THAT OWNS REAL PROPERTY. THE ENABLING LEGISLATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE IMPOSITION OF THE RPTT ON TRANSFERS THAT CLOSE OUTSIDE THE CITY WHERE THE REAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY. IN ADDITION, THE IMPOSITION OF THE RPTT ON THE TRANSFERS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE DUE PROCESS OR COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.