The structural choice between a Tenancy-in-Common and a Delaware Statutory Trust shapes more than legal title: it determines how much operating involvement an investor carries, how easily the deal scales to other co-investors, and whether a cash-out refinance is even possible down the road.
Last reviewed:
Why Both Structures Qualify for 1031 Treatment
The IRS recognizes DSTs and TICs as the two co-ownership structures eligible for like-kind exchange treatment. That shared eligibility traces to different regulatory moments. The IRS formally approved TIC structures for 1031 exchanges through Rev. Proc. 2002-22, issued in 2002. DSTs followed shortly after with their own guidance.
Since that regulatory window opened, tens of thousands of investors have moved more than $20 billion into and out of TIC and DST replacement interests combined. That volume reflects genuine demand from sellers exiting appreciated property who want to stay in real estate without concentrating into a single asset.
Both vehicles sit alongside LLCs and Qualified Opportunity Zone funds as the principal fractional co-investment options available to private real estate investors. Each carries a different tradeoff profile. The like-kind eligibility is the starting point, not the deciding factor.
How the Ownership Mechanics Actually Differ
| Factor | TIC | DST |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership form | Direct fractional title via deed | Beneficial interest in a trust |
| Mortgage position | Each investor is a named borrower | Trust holds the mortgage; sponsor manages |
| Investor count | Capped at 35 co-investors | No statutory cap; scales broadly |
| Minimum investment | Typically $250,000 to $1 million | Materially lower than TIC |
| Governance | Co-owners vote on major decisions | Sponsor-managed; investors are passive |
| 1031 eligibility | Yes, per Rev. Proc. 2002-22 | Yes, per IRS guidance |
The mechanical difference with the largest downstream consequence is the mortgage position. In a TIC, each investor is individually deemed a borrower on the property debt and holds title through a recorded deed. In a DST, the trust entity holds the mortgage, and the sponsor manages operations without investor input. That distinction determines everything from voting rights to refinancing flexibility.
The Cash-Out Refinance Case for TICs
One structural feature unique to the TIC model is the cash-out strategy. In this approach, a property is acquired entirely with cash, eliminating mortgage debt at closing. After one to two years, the ownership group refinances at a loan-to-value ratio of 40 to 60 percent. That proceeds event returns a large portion of the original principal to investors without triggering a taxable transaction.
For investors who need liquidity after the exchange but want to preserve the tax deferral, this path has real appeal. The tradeoff is that TIC investors carry operating involvement during the hold: major property decisions require co-owner votes, and each investor remains on the mortgage once refinancing occurs.
- Debt-free acquisition followed by refinance is the defining sequence.
- The 40-60% LTV refinance is the mechanism for returning capital.
- Operating decisions are shared among co-owners, not delegated to a sponsor.
Why DSTs Scale and TICs Do Not
The 35-investor cap embedded in TIC structures is not incidental. It reflects IRS requirements for maintaining like-kind eligibility, and it creates a hard ceiling on how many investors can participate in a single offering. Minimums reinforced that constraint: TIC investments typically require between $250,000 and $1 million per investor, a threshold that limits the eligible pool further.
DSTs carry no comparable statutory cap on investors. A sponsor can aggregate fractional interests from a much broader base of accredited participants, underwrite a larger or more diversified asset, and maintain passive management throughout the hold. That scalability is why DST investment volume reached a post-recession high in 2019, per Mountain Dell Consulting, while TIC volume remained structurally bounded.
For investors who want passive income and institutional-quality assets without governance obligations, the DST's sponsor-managed structure removes friction that TIC co-ownership introduces by design.
What This Means
Investors choosing between these two structures are ultimately choosing between two different relationships with the underlying property. TICs offer direct title, mortgage presence, and cash-out optionality, at the cost of active co-ownership and a narrow investor pool. DSTs offer passivity, scalability, and lower minimums, with a sponsor holding operational authority throughout.
Neither structure is suitable for every exchange situation. The right fit depends on liquidity needs after the exchange, tolerance for governance involvement, and the size of the equity being reinvested. Accredited investors map their specific situation against current offerings through a partnered broker-dealer's intake process. Confirm accreditation to proceed.