Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (2026)
Exemptions from fee
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
77.25(2)(2) From the United States or from this state or from any instrumentality, agency or subdivision of either.
77.25(2g)(2g) By gift, to the United States or to this state or to any instrumentality, agency or subdivision of either.
77.25(2r)(2r) Under s. 236.29 (1) or (2) or 236.34 (1m) (e) or for the purpose of a road, street, or highway, to the United States or to this state or to any instrumentality, agency, or subdivision of either.
77.25(3)(3) Which, executed for nominal, inadequate or no consideration, confirms, corrects or reforms a conveyance previously recorded.
77.25(6d)(6d) Pursuant to partnerships filing or cancelling a statement of qualification under s. 178.0901 or a corresponding statement under the law of another jurisdiction.
77.25(6m)(6m) Pursuant to the conversion of a business entity to another form of business entity under s. 178.1141, 179.1141, 180.1161, 181.1161, or 183.1041, if, after the conversion, the ownership interests in the new entity are identical with the ownership interests in the original entity immediately preceding the conversion.
77.25(6q)(6q) Pursuant to an interest exchange under s. 178.1131, 179.1131, 180.1102, 181.1131, or 183.1031.
77.25(6t)(6t) Pursuant to a domestication under s. 178.1151, 179.1151, 180.1171, 181.1171, or 183.1051.
77.25(7)(7) By a subsidiary corporation to its parent corporation for no consideration, nominal consideration or in sole consideration of cancellation, surrender or transfer of capital stock between parent and subsidiary corporation.
77.25(8)(8) Between parent and child, stepparent and stepchild, parent and son-in-law, parent and daughter-in-law, or grandparent and grandchild for nominal or no consideration.
77.25(9)(9) Between agent and principal or from a trustee to a beneficiary without actual consideration.
77.25(10)(10) Solely in order to provide or release security for a debt or obligation, if the debt or obligation was not incurred as the result of a conveyance.
77.25(14)(14) Under a foreclosure or a deed in lieu of a foreclosure to a person holding a mortgage or to a seller under a land contract.
77.25(15)(15) Between a corporation and its shareholders if all of the stock is owned by persons who are related to each other as spouses, as lineal ascendants, lineal descendants or siblings, whether by blood or by adoption, or as spouses of siblings, if the transfer is for no consideration except the assumption of debt or stock of the corporation and if the corporation owned the property for at least 3 years.
77.25(15m)(15m) Between a partnership and one or more of its partners if all of the partners are related to each other as spouses, as lineal ascendants, lineal descendants or siblings, whether by blood or by adoption, or as spouses of siblings and if the transfer is for no consideration other than the assumption of debt or an interest in the partnership.
77.25(15s)(15s) Between a limited liability company and one or more of its members if all of the members are related to each other as spouses, as lineal ascendants, lineal descendants or siblings, whether by blood or by adoption, or as spouses of siblings and if the transfer is for no consideration other than the assumption of debt or an interest in the limited liability company.
77.25(16)(16) To a trust if a transfer from the grantor to the beneficiary of the trust would be exempt under this section.
77.25(17)(17) Of a deed executed in fulfillment of a land contract if the proper fee was paid when the land contract or an instrument evidencing the land contract was recorded.
77.25(21)(21) Of transmission facilities or land rights to the transmission company, as defined in s. 196.485 (1) (ge), under s. 196.485 (5) (b) or (c) or (6) (a) 1. in exchange for securities, as defined in s. 196.485 (1) (fe).
77.25 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 150; 1985 a. 39; 1987 a. 27; 1991 a. 39, 202, 269; 1993 a. 112, 263, 307; 1995 a. 458; 1997 a. 140; 1999 a. 9, 162; 2001 a. 44; 2005 a. 206; 2009 a. 28; 2013 a. 66, 272; 2015 a. 295; 2019 a. 9; 2021 a. 258; 2025 a. 38.
77.25 AnnotationCorporate stock constitutes “actual consideration” under sub. (9). Gottfried, Inc. v. DOR, 145 Wis. 2d 715, 429 N.W.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1988).
77.25 AnnotationA principal/agent relationship for purposes of sub. (9) must be examined as of the date of the conveyance. Washington National Development Co. v. DOR, 194 Wis. 2d 566, 535 N.W.2d 71 (Ct. App. 1995).
77.25 AnnotationExemptions are strictly construed against granting the exemption. While subs. (15m) and (15s) exempt transfers between family members and family business entities, they do not exempt transfers from one family business to another even though the same transaction, had it been completed in two separate transfers, would have been exempt. Wolter v. DOR, 231 Wis. 2d 651, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0671.
77.25 AnnotationSub. (15s) applies only if the members of the limited liability company (LLC) are humans. The requirement that all of the members of the LLC be related to each other was reasonably interpreted to reject the argument that if there is only one member, that member need not be human because neither humans nor entities may be related to themselves. F.M. Management Co. v. DOR, 2004 WI App 19, 269 Wis. 2d 526, 674 N.W.2d 922, 03-1536.
77.25 AnnotationThere is no family member exemption under sub. (15m) when the transfer is between partnerships rather than from a partnership to exempted family members. For the exemption to apply, the partner or partners who are involved in the conveyance must be human beings, not just legal entities. Turner v. DOR, 2004 WI App 82, 271 Wis. 2d 760, 679 N.W.2d 880, 03-1517.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
Turner v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “On May 22,2001, the Department of Revenue issued an assessment advising the Turners that the exemption under Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15m) (2001-02) 1 had been improper.”
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
Gottfried, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “, trustee, argues that if the statutory exemption scheme does not apply to its conveyances in liquidation, then sec. 77.25, Stats., denies it equal protection.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Mark, 483 N.W.2d 302 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “2 The department argues that the commission's ruling is wrong because it creates an exemption from the real estate trans *293 fer fee beyond those expressly set out in sec. 77.25(15), Stats. We need not specifically answer this question since we otherwise conclude that the…”
Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2004 WI App 171 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (12). In fact, deeds recorded from a sale under threat of condemnation must indicate that the transfer was made under threat of condemnation in order to qualify for this tax exemption.”
Washington Nat'l Dev. Co. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 535 N.W.2d 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, to Washington Square I and Washington Square II exempt under § 77.25(9), STATS., from the real estate transfer fee as a transfer between principal and agent? We conclude that the transfers were exempt from a real estate transfer fee and affirm the trial court's order reversing…”
Kimberly B. Rushman v. Christopher John McMahon (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “22(1) (“There is imposed on the grantor of real estate a real estate transfer fee at the rate of 30 cents for each $100 of value or fraction thereof on every conveyance not exempted or excluded under this subchapter.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(11) — 1 case
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(12) — 1 case
Pinczkowski v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2004 WI App 171 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (12). In fact, deeds recorded from a sale under threat of condemnation must indicate that the transfer was made under threat of condemnation in order to qualify for this tax exemption.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(15) — 1 case
Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. Mark, 483 N.W.2d 302 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). “2 The department argues that the commission's ruling is wrong because it creates an exemption from the real estate trans *293 fer fee beyond those expressly set out in sec. 77.25(15), Stats. We need not specifically answer this question since we otherwise conclude that the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(15m) — 2 cases
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
Turner v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “On May 22,2001, the Department of Revenue issued an assessment advising the Turners that the exemption under Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15m) (2001-02) 1 had been improper.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(15s) — 2 cases
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(16) — 1 case
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(6) — 1 case
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(6d) — 1 case
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(6m) — 1 case
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(7) — 2 cases
Gottfried, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “, trustee, argues that if the statutory exemption scheme does not apply to its conveyances in liquidation, then sec. 77.25, Stats., denies it equal protection.”
F.M. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “The companies contend that: (1) the transactions were exempt from the transfer fee pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15s); (2) one of the transfers was not a "conveyance" subject to the fee; and (3) the Commission erred in upholding the Department's imposition of penalties.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(8) — 1 case
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(8m) — 2 cases
Turner v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 2004 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “On May 22,2001, the Department of Revenue issued an assessment advising the Turners that the exemption under Wis. Stat. § 77.25 (15m) (2001-02) 1 had been improper.”
Wolter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 605 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “It argues that Wolter's suggestion that the WTAC's decision is a "blatant example of form over substance" is an attempt to distract us from the well-settled law that exemptions must be strictly construed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 77.25(9) — 2 cases
Gottfried, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 429 N.W.2d 508 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “, trustee, argues that if the statutory exemption scheme does not apply to its conveyances in liquidation, then sec. 77.25, Stats., denies it equal protection.”
Washington Nat'l Dev. Co. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue, 535 N.W.2d 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “, to Washington Square I and Washington Square II exempt under § 77.25(9), STATS., from the real estate transfer fee as a transfer between principal and agent? We conclude that the transfers were exempt from a real estate transfer fee and affirm the trial court's order reversing…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.