If your CPA hears "installment sale tax planning" and worries it's the audit-magnet structure they've read about in IRS warnings — they're thinking of DSTs and Monetized Installment Sales. Those are different products with different legal foundations. The SIS uses the same IRC §453 the IRS has codified for 100+ years.Here's exactly how they differ.
When most people hear “installment sale,” they think of the old-school version where the buyer pays the seller directly over time — like seller-financed real estate. That arrangement carries massive buyer-default risk for the seller and is NOT what the SIS does.
Bottom line: the SIS keeps the §453 spread-tax benefit of the old installment sale but eliminates the buyer-default risk. The buyer wires the full sale price to escrow on closing day — same as any cash sale. Escrow splits the wire per the SIS rider: any cash carve-out goes to you, the rest goes to the assignment company which immediately purchases an annuity from an A-rated carrier. The carrier becomes the obligor.
Several different "installment-sale-style" tax structures get pitched to high-net-worth sellers. They look similar from the outside, but they have completely different legal foundations. Some are bulletproof. Some are listed-transaction audit magnets.
| Structure | Tax Code | IRS Position | Funded By | Seller Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured Installment Sale (SIS)This calculator | IRC §453 | ✓ Codified Same law as standard installment sales — settled for 100+ years |
A-rated annuity carrier (assignment company) | No constructive receipt |
| Deferred Sales Trust (DST)No code section | None (relies on §453 by analogy) | ✗ Challenged Multiple Tax Court losses for promoters; IRS asserts constructive receipt |
Trust holds property + sells | Trust controls funds |
| Monetized Installment Sale (MIS)IRS Notice 2023-34 | Strained §453 + §752 | ✗ LISTED TRANSACTION (2024) Mandatory disclosure required; promoter penalties; near-certain audit |
Loan-backed installment note | Effective receipt via loan |
| Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT)IRC §664 | IRC §664 | ✓ Codified Same law Stanford / Harvard / hospitals have used for 60+ years |
Irrevocable trust holds + manages | No reclaim — remainder to charity |
| 1031 Like-Kind ExchangeIRC §1031 | IRC §1031 | ✓ Codified Real estate only since 2017 TCJA; common practice |
Qualified intermediary holds proceeds | Limited (must reinvest 180d) |
| Delaware Statutory Trust (1031)IRC §1031 fractional | IRC §1031 | ✓ Codified Not to be confused with Deferred Sales Trust — completely different product |
DST sponsor holds fractional interest | Locked 5-10 years |
The buyer at closing assigns the obligation to pay the seller's installments to a third-party assignment company — almost always a name-brand A-rated insurance carrier. The carrier funds the obligation immediately with a lump sum from escrow, then pays the seller per the schedule.
Critically: the seller doesn't hold the funds. The seller doesn't have constructive receipt. The seller has no economic relationship to the buyer after closing. The buyer is fully discharged. This is straight IRC §453 installment-sale treatment — the same code section any farmer selling on installment to a neighbor has used for a century.
Why CPAs don't object: there's nothing to object to. It's how installment sales have worked since 1926. The only "innovation" is that the assignment company is an A-rated annuity carrier rather than the buyer themselves — which actually strengthens seller protection because the carrier's balance sheet is far stronger than any private buyer's.
A promoter sets up an irrevocable trust. The seller "sells" the property to the trust in exchange for an installment note. The trust then sells the property to the actual buyer and pays the seller per the note schedule. The seller claims §453 installment treatment based on the seller-to-trust sale.
The problem: the IRS argues the seller has effective control over a trust they set up for their own benefit, and that the "sale" to the trust isn't a real arm's-length transaction. Multiple Tax Court cases have ruled against DST promoters. The trust's assets, the trustee's role, the seller's beneficial interest — every piece of the structure invites scrutiny.
Specific issues: trustee is often picked by the promoter, not independent. Trust assets are sometimes invested in vehicles benefiting the promoter. Trust mechanics often blur the line between "trust holds funds" and "seller controls funds." There's no statutory authority for the structure — it's a clever theory, not codified law.
The seller does a §453 installment sale (often through a promoter-run vehicle), then immediately takes out a non-recourse loan against the installment note for ~95% of the sale value. Functionally, the seller has the cash today but claims §453 deferral on the gain. The IRS calls this what it is: monetization of the deferral.
In 2024, the IRS formally designated Monetized Installment Sales as a "listed transaction" under Treas. Reg. §1.6011-4. This means: every taxpayer using one must file Form 8886 disclosing the transaction, every advisor recommending one must file Form 8918 as a material advisor, and the IRS has put the structure on its specific enforcement targeting list.
If you've been pitched a "monetized installment sale" or any §453 structure where you get a loan against the note, stop and consult a tax attorney before signing. Listed transactions carry steep penalties for non-disclosure ($10K minimum, often higher), and the underlying tax position usually loses on audit.
A completely different structure — uses charitable trust law, not installment-sale mechanics. The seller donates the appreciated property into an irrevocable trust. The trust sells the property tax-free (because it's a charitable trust). The trust pays the seller (or other beneficiaries) an income stream for life or a term of years. Whatever's left at the end goes to charity.
Why this is safe:CRTs were codified in 1969 under IRC §664. Stanford University, Harvard, the Mayo Clinic, every operating charity in America has accepted CRT-funded gifts for decades. The IRS has clear regulations governing CRUTs (unitrusts) and CRATs (annuity trusts). There's no ambiguity about whether they work — they do.
The tradeoff: the remainder goes to charity. If you don't want to make a charitable gift, the CRT isn't your tool. But for sellers with even modest charitable intent (or those willing to use a wealth-replacement life insurance policy to restore the family wealth via the death benefit), the CRT often beats every other structure on after-tax math.
Yes — but there are TWO different "DSTs" and they're completely different products.This is one of the biggest sources of confusion in this space.
A real-estate investment vehicle where multiple investors hold fractional interests in a pool of properties. Used as a 1031 exchange replacement property for sellers who want passive real estate exposure. Codified under IRC §1031 and Rev. Rul. 2004-86. Legitimate, widely used, no IRS challenge to the structure (only to specific bad sponsors). 3-5% upfront sponsor fees are the main downside, plus illiquidity.
A trademark-protected promotional structure marketed as a §453 deferral vehicle. No connection to Delaware Statutory Trusts whatsoever — the name overlap is deeply unfortunate and intentionally misleading. Multiple Tax Court losses. Office of Chief Counsel guidance against it. If you've been pitched a "Deferred Sales Trust" to defer your sale gain, that's the one to avoid.
Practical test: if the structure your CPA or an advisor is describing involves fractional real-estate ownership, they mean the legitimate Delaware Statutory Trust. If it involves a trust holding the proceeds of your sale and paying you in installments, that's the audit-magnet Deferred Sales Trust. Different products. Different outcomes.
Beyond the DST and the MIS, the §453 SIS gets confused with at least a dozen other tax-planning structures. Here’s a quick disambiguation table so advisors can rule each one in or out.
Every citation below is publicly available on irs.gov, the U.S. Code, or the Cornell LII. If your CPA or attorney wants the source documents, hand them this list.
Beyond the DST and MIS, here are other promoter-marketed structures the IRS has actively challenged. If a salesperson pitches any of these as an alternative to a §453 SIS, walk away — and consider whether your CPA and attorney are appropriately licensed for the specific structure.
The most common “Deferred Sales Trust” pitch goes like this: “Your sale proceeds go into a trust, the trustee invests them in a diversified portfolio, and you get paid monthly from the investment returns.”
That sounds reasonable — until you read the fine print. The trust’s ability to pay you depends entirely on how its investments perform. If the trustee invests in equities and the market drops 40% in a year (like 2008 or 2022), the trust doesn’t have the assets to pay you anymore. Your “guaranteed installment” isn’t guaranteed by anyone.
The §453 Structured Installment Sale uses an A-rated insurance carrier’s annuity contract as the payment obligation. The carrier’s general account — not a discretionary investment portfolio — backs every payment. State insurance guaranty associations (CA = CLHIGA, 80% of present value with $250K cap per insured) provide additional protection if the carrier fails. Market performance does not affect your monthly check.
A properly funded SIS = sale proceeds wired at closing directly to a third-party assignment company that immediately purchases an A-rated carrier annuity. An improperly funded structure = proceeds held by a trust/escrow with the seller as beneficiary, then later “invested” in an annuity or portfolio. The IRS can challenge the latter as constructive receipt — collapsing the §453 deferral and taxing the seller on the full gain in Year 1.
If yes → SIS. Safe. If "no, we use a trust" → DST. Run.
If yes → Monetized Installment Sale. IRS listed transaction.Absolutely walk away.
Acceptable answers: IRC §453 (SIS), IRC §664 (CRT), IRC §1031 (LKE / DST-fractional). Unacceptable: "well, it's based on §453 by analogy" or "there's case law that supports it." If the answer isn't a clean code section, ask a tax attorney before signing anything.
The SIS uses straight IRC §453 the same way installment sales have worked for a century. Different code, different risk. Happy to walk your CPA through it directly — most are relieved within the first 10 minutes once they realize the carrier-assignment structure isn't anything like a DST.
Call Hans · 213-414-2808 CPA Briefing Page →