Canonical page: https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-reviews-how-to-build-your-own-evidence-based-comparison
Author: Sequoia Research
Published: 2026-10-17T02:00:07.144Z
Updated: 2026-10-17T02:00:07.144Z

# Delaware Statutory Trust Reviews: How to Build Your Own Evidence-Based Comparison

## What Is This Article About?

This article shows how to build a DST comparison that another reader can check. It explains which fields to use, how to cite the source for each entry, and how to handle facts that cannot be compared fairly. Fictional examples show how a fee, payment figure, or debt ratio can change meaning when its basis is made clear. The result is a record of supported differences and open questions, not an automatic investment ranking.

## Table of Contents

- [Define the Comparison Before Choosing the Columns](#define-the-comparison-before-choosing-the-columns)
- [Build a Source Register for Each DST](#build-a-source-register-for-each-dst)
- [Give Every Comparison Field a Clear Definition](#give-every-comparison-field-a-clear-definition)
- [Use Separate Labels for Missing and Noncomparable Evidence](#use-separate-labels-for-missing-and-noncomparable-evidence)
- [Keep Actual Payments Separate From Projections](#keep-actual-payments-separate-from-projections)
- [Convert Fee Percentages to the Same Dollar Basis](#convert-fee-percentages-to-the-same-dollar-basis)
- [Check the Meaning of Debt and Property Ratios](#check-the-meaning-of-debt-and-property-ratios)
- [Compare Rights and Conditions Without Inventing a Score](#compare-rights-and-conditions-without-inventing-a-score)
- [Keep Sponsor History Separate From Offering Evidence](#keep-sponsor-history-separate-from-offering-evidence)
- [Resolve Conflicting Sources Without Erasing Them](#resolve-conflicting-sources-without-erasing-them)
- [Work Through a Fictional Two-Offering Comparison](#work-through-a-fictional-two-offering-comparison)
- [Test One Assumption and Preserve Its Limits](#test-one-assumption-and-preserve-its-limits)
- [Write a Comparison Note Someone Else Can Recheck](#write-a-comparison-note-someone-else-can-recheck)
- [Update the File Without Rewriting Its History](#update-the-file-without-rewriting-its-history)
- [Frequently Asked Questions](#frequently-asked-questions)

## Define the Comparison Before Choosing the Columns

Begin with the question you want the comparison to answer. Two DST offerings, two sponsor histories, and two service firms are different subjects. A single table that mixes them can make a strong service review look like evidence of strong property performance. Choose the subject before collecting numbers.

Name the exact issuer and offering version. Also note the class or purchase route if it affects the terms. A sponsor's brand name is not enough. Two investments from the same sponsor can have different properties, debt, costs, and plans. Two ways to purchase the same investment can also involve different professional charges.

State the purpose in a sentence. For example: “Compare the documented terms and assumptions for a possible $300,000 investment in each of two offerings.” That sets a common dollar amount without claiming that either option fits the investor. It also identifies the unit of comparison: the investment being considered, not the sponsor's entire business.

Choose a review cutoff. The cutoff tells the reader which documents were available when the comparison was prepared. It does not make every figure current to that date. A report received in October may describe operations through June. Keep the reporting period beside the figure so the two dates are not confused.

Write down exclusions too. A file may compare offering terms while leaving personal tax results to the investor's advisers. It may compare one fee while other costs remain open. Clear exclusions keep a narrow calculation from becoming a broad conclusion by accident.

The SEC's private-placement bulletin explains that these investments may provide less disclosure than registered offerings. Your file therefore needs room for missing evidence. An empty field is a finding about the research available, not a reason to invent a reasonable-looking value. [SEC private-placement bulletin, updated September 21, 2026](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin).

## Build a Source Register for Each DST

Create a short list of source documents before building the comparison table. Give each document a stable label, such as A-01 for the first offering's memorandum. Add the exact title, date, version, source location, and date received. Several rows can refer to that label. You do not have to copy a long file name each time.

The register should distinguish an offering memorandum from a review about that memorandum. It should also distinguish an issuer report from a calculation you made. These may all be useful, but they do different jobs. A third-party summary can help identify a claim; the underlying record may be needed to check it.

Where a document has both printed page numbers and PDF viewer numbers, record which one you use. “Printed page 18” is clearer than “page 18” when the file begins with several unnumbered pages. Add the section heading as a second way to find the passage. That small detail saves time when another reader checks the entry.

Use direct links when the source is public and stable. For a private file, use a secure location that authorized reviewers can access. Do not make confidential offering documents public merely to create a citation. A useful citation identifies where the evidence is held without changing its access rights.

Record the source's limits. A sample report may show a format but no actual results. A summary may omit the debt exhibit. A transcript may preserve an answer without proving that the speaker had authority to change terms. Brief notes prevent the file's source list from looking more complete than it is.

FINRA's private-placement guidance discusses the need to assess the independence, incentives, and qualifications of outside research providers. Those duties apply to member firms. For your file, identify who prepared the report. Then check what it supports. The word “independent” does not replace that work. [FINRA Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08).

## Give Every Comparison Field a Clear Definition

A field needs more than a label. “Yield,” “fees,” and “leverage” can each refer to several measures. Define the amount, unit, period, and included costs before entering a number. Otherwise, a neat row may compare unlike facts while appearing precise.

A payment field might use dollars paid during a stated quarter. Divide that amount by the original equity for the same interest. A separate field could hold the projected first full-year payment. The definitions keep a past cash fact from sliding into a future forecast column.

For a fee field, record the rate, the base to which it applies, when it is charged, and who bears it. For debt, record the balance date and the value or equity measure used below the line. For property occupancy, specify the units being counted and the date. The definition should tell another reader how to reproduce the entry.

A compact row can use these parts:

| Part of the row | What it tells the reader |
| --- | --- |
| Field and definition | The exact question being compared |
| Offering A and Offering B entries | Values with units, periods, and scope |
| Source references | Document label, page, and relevant section |
| Comparison status | Whether the entries support a fair comparison |
| Open question | What needs to be resolved before using the row |

You do not need every possible field. Start with matters that could change the decision or the next research step. A table with 80 shallow rows may be less useful than 15 well-supported rows. Do not count the number of completed cells as a measure of diligence quality.

Keep source values and your derived values separate. If a document states a rate and you calculate dollars, label the dollars as your calculation. Preserve the formula and inputs. A reviewer should not have to guess whether the issuer supplied the number or you created it.

## Use Separate Labels for Missing and Noncomparable Evidence

A single blank cell hides too much. The fact may be missing, irrelevant, outdated, or present in a form that answers a different question. Use explicit labels so the reader knows which problem exists and what could resolve it.

One useful set has five groups. **Available and comparable** means both entries meet the field definition, with their limits shown. **Available but not comparable** means evidence exists but differs in a way that prevents the intended comparison. **Not available in the reviewed records** means the file does not contain the needed evidence.

**Not applicable, with a reason** means the field does not apply under the documented facts. **Future outcome unknown** means the question concerns an event that has not occurred. A future sale price belongs in that last category unless you are explicitly displaying a chosen assumption. It is not a missing historical report that a better search will necessarily find.

You choose these labels for the file. They are not regulator ratings. They describe a field's usefulness for the chosen comparison. Even a row marked comparable may have a weak source. It may also rest on a forecast. Show the source limits and forecast risks beside the status.

Do not treat “not available” as zero. A fee not found in the reviewed packet is not a confirmed absence of that fee. Likewise, a source that lists no completed exits may be describing an incomplete history. Ask whether the figure is zero, not reported, or outside the source's scope.

Do not use “not applicable” as a quick way to close a hard question. Record the basis for that label. For example, a question about a floating-rate loan may not apply to a documented fixed-rate facility, but other debt questions still do. One resolved field does not complete the debt review.

## Keep Actual Payments Separate From Projections

Consider two fictional entries for a $300,000 interest. Offering A's record shows $3,750 paid for one full quarter. Offering B's plan projects $16,500 for the first full year. Both numbers may be useful, but they do not describe the same kind of evidence or the same period.

A's payment is 1.25% of the stated original equity for that quarter. Multiplying the quarterly amount by four gives a $15,000 annualized pace, or 5%. That is arithmetic based on one quarter. It is not proof that $15,000 was paid over a full year or will be paid in the next year.

B's projected $16,500 equals 5.5% of $300,000 for the stated year. It is a forecast, not a payment received. Comparing A's 5% annualized pace with B's 5.5% projection does not establish which investment performed better. Mark the row as available but not comparable for actual annual results.

The row can still be informative if the labels are kept clear. It may show the questions needed next: obtain A's full-year actual payment record, or obtain a matching projection period for A if the intended comparison is prospective. Do not relabel B's forecast as actual merely to complete the table.

Also ask what each payment figure includes. A cash distribution rate does not explain its funding source, tax character, or total investment return. The comparison needs those separate questions if they matter to the conclusion. Multiplying a payment by four does not supply the missing answers.

The SEC's performance bulletin distinguishes targets and projections from actual results and stresses understanding methods and included fees. It also cautions that historical results do not predict the future. Keep those limits beside the relevant figure, not only in a note far below the table. [SEC performance-claims bulletin, September 15, 2022](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47).

## Convert Fee Percentages to the Same Dollar Basis

A lower fee percentage can produce the same dollars when it applies to a larger base. The comparison should show the base before deciding which figure is lower in economic terms. This step is arithmetic, not a judgment that the total cost is reasonable.

Use a fictional example involving one transaction fee. Offering A charges 2% of $15 million in investor equity. Offering B charges 1% of a $30 million property purchase price. Both calculations produce a $300,000 fee at the offering level.

Assume each offering has $15 million of equity and that this particular fee is borne proportionally by investors. A $300,000 investor owns 2% of that equity. Their allocated share of the example fee is $6,000 in either offering. Under those explicit assumptions, the headline 2% and 1% rates produce the same dollar burden for this investor.

Keep the assumptions in the row. A change in the equity amount or class could affect the result. So could a different cost-sharing rule or purchase route. Do not use proportional allocation if the documents specify another method. If the allocation rule is missing, calculate only the amount you can support and leave the investor-level result open.

This example compares one fee. It does not establish equal total costs. Add separate rows for other entry costs, recurring charges, exit costs, and professional fees. Check whether a projected payment already reflects a charge before subtracting it again in your own model.

The SEC's July 2025 fee bulletin points readers to both product disclosures and professional fee documents. It distinguishes transaction charges from ongoing expenses. Use that broader search when the goal is a full cost comparison; one matched percentage cannot carry that conclusion. [SEC fee and expense bulletin](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated).

## Check the Meaning of Debt and Property Ratios

Ratios need named numerators and denominators. A debt balance divided by property value is different from debt divided by investor equity. Both may be described casually as leverage. They cannot be compared by looking only at the percentage.

Suppose fictional Offering A reports $18 million of debt against a $30 million appraised property value at a stated date. The ratio is 60%. Offering B has $18 million of debt. It also reports $15 million of investor equity. Debt divided by equity is 120%. That does not show that B's loan-to-value ratio is 120%.

It may be tempting to add B's debt and equity and call the $33 million sum its property value. Do not do that without support. Raised equity may pay fees, fund reserves, or serve other uses. Debt plus equity is a funding total under the stated inputs; it is not automatically an appraisal or current value.

The entry for B's appraisal-based loan-to-value ratio may remain unavailable. Request the relevant value measure and date. Even after obtaining it, compare whether both offerings use the same kind of value: purchase price, appraisal, or a later estimate. A common formula does not remove different valuation methods. Even a known purchase price would answer a different question from an appraisal at the debt balance date.

Apply the same discipline to occupancy. Units leased, square feet occupied, and rent collected are distinct measures. A building can have leased space that is not producing full current cash. If the sources use different measures, record both definitions and mark the row accordingly.

A ratio should therefore travel with its date, base, and source. Do not remove those labels to make a summary cleaner. They are part of the information that tells the reader what the number means and how much weight it can bear.

## Compare Rights and Conditions Without Inventing a Score

Some important differences are words in agreements, not numbers. They may concern transfer consent, who can make a decision, or what happens under a stated event. For these rows, summarize the term in plain language and cite the clause. Keep the original wording available for legal review.

Do not turn each right into points unless you have a clear, defensible reason for that method. A table that awards five points for reporting and subtracts five for a transfer restriction can imply that the two cancel each other. They may answer entirely different needs. A firm cash-access requirement cannot be solved by a better report format.

Use a question tied to the actual choice. “Does the holder have a stated redemption right?” is clearer than “liquidity score.” If the documents describe only a possible transfer, say so. A transfer process, a secondary buyer, and the trust selling its property are separate events.

For a 1031 exchange, keep the tax qualification question separate from the comparison of property terms. IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-86 addresses the trust described in that ruling and requires the other section 1031 conditions to be met. A comparison table cannot establish that a different structure or a particular investor's transaction qualifies. [IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-86](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-04-86.pdf).

Your adviser may also need to assess whether a term is acceptable. Finding it is only the first step. Record the source fact, the professional's conclusion, and any remaining condition separately. This helps the reader see where document reading ends and judgment begins.

The final result can be a set of conditions for further review. For example, “obtain the missing transfer provision before relying on the exit discussion” is a concrete next step. It is more honest than giving the offering a middle score because the file lacks the answer.

## Keep Sponsor History Separate From Offering Evidence

Sponsor experience can inform a review, but it does not replace the current offering's records. Keep a sponsor-history section with its own definitions, periods, and sources. Do not use a broad company statistic to fill a missing field about a specific property or loan.

If one sponsor reports completed programs and another reports assets acquired, the measures answer different questions. Completed programs may help identify realized outcomes for a defined group. Acquisition volume describes activity. A larger number under one heading is not a rank against a different measure under another.

Ask what is included in each history. Is it all programs, selected property types, or only completed cash exits? Are ongoing programs listed separately? Do results refer to the sponsor, a related entity, or the same team under a prior firm? Record the stated scope rather than assuming the brand name resolves it.

Missing outcomes need their own label. A program without an available result is not automatically a loss, success, or zero return. If a comparison depends on completed results, exclude unsupported results from that calculation and state the exclusion. Keep the missing cases visible in the population record.

FINRA's 2026 oversight report identifies reliance solely on prior experience with an issuer as one example of weak investigation. It also addresses failures to resolve concerns and preserve evidence of the work. The report was published in December 2025. It supports keeping current-offering analysis distinct from familiarity, not treating every experienced sponsor as suspect. [FINRA report, printed pages 53–55](https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/2026-annual-regulatory-oversight-report.pdf).

A useful sponsor row therefore says what the available history covers and what it does not. If histories cannot be aligned, preserve them as separate descriptions. Both can be useful. They do not need to become a ranked list.

## Resolve Conflicting Sources Without Erasing Them

Two sources may give different figures because one is wrong, one is newer, or they measure different things. A contradiction deserves investigation before you choose a preferred number. Start by checking identity, dates, units, and scope.

Suppose a fictional summary lists a reserve of $800,000 while a later statement shows $650,000. That is not automatically an error. The balance may have changed between dates, or one figure may describe a target rather than cash held. The first task is to identify what each source says and the period it covers.

Record both values with their citations and a short question. Ask whether the later source updates the earlier one and what explains the difference. If the response identifies a $150,000 use during the period, compare that explanation with the relevant record. The arithmetic alone does not prove that this was the cause.

Do not assume that the newest file overrides every older provision. A new operating report may update a cash balance while leaving the trust agreement unchanged. A formal supplement may amend specific terms while preserving the rest. Ask which document controls the exact field rather than setting one universal source order.

Once a discrepancy is resolved, keep the earlier value and the reason for the update in the history. Mark which value is used in the current comparison. This helps when an old review still quotes the earlier number. A reader can then see why your table differs.

If the sources still conflict, say so. “Conflicting reported balances; cause not confirmed” is a usable conclusion. Quietly choosing the number that makes a favored offering look better would weaken the whole comparison.

## Work Through a Fictional Two-Offering Comparison

Bring the method together with two invented offerings, Maple and Cypress. These names, documents, and figures are fictional. The exercise compares evidence for a possible $300,000 interest in each. It does not recommend either structure or model an actual offering.

The starting packet contains the payment, fee, and debt records used earlier. It also includes a clear reporting contact for each offering, but the transfer section for Cypress is absent from the reviewed copy. The first comparison should preserve those different levels of support:

| Field | Maple and Cypress evidence | Initial comparison status |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Actual annual payments | Maple has one actual quarter; Cypress has a first-year projection | Available but not comparable |
| One transaction fee | Both resolve to $6,000 per investor under the stated allocation assumptions | Comparable for this fee only |
| Appraisal-based loan-to-value ratio | Maple has debt and appraisal; Cypress lacks a matching appraisal | Cypress appraisal basis unavailable |
| Reporting contact | Both packets identify a contact for the same reporting task | Comparable contact information, no service-quality finding |
| Transfer terms | Maple section available; Cypress section missing from reviewed copy | Cypress evidence unavailable |

This table resists two shortcuts. It does not call Cypress better because its projected payment rate is higher. It also does not call Maple safer because more fields are filled. Missing information can limit a decision without proving that the underlying terms are worse.

Now suppose a follow-up supplies a common first-full-year projection for each offering. Maple projects $15,000 and Cypress $16,500 on the same $300,000 equity amount. Assume the sources now confirm the same treatment of the particular recurring costs included in these figures. The projected annual payment row can be compared on that narrow basis: Cypress is $1,500 higher.

The change is in the evidence, not in a guaranteed result. Retain Maple's actual quarter in the historical section. Keep both projected values labeled as forecasts. The new row still does not establish cash sources, total return, future value, or the risk of either payment failing to occur.

Suppose the Cypress transfer section also arrives and shows a process requiring review under stated conditions. Update that field with the clause and limits. Do not replace “missing” with “easy exit.” Receipt of a document resolves an evidence gap; it does not create a buyer or remove the conditions in the document.

The debt value basis remains unresolved. The file is now more useful. The debt ratios still cannot be compared as intended. The written conclusion should preserve that one open point rather than declaring the whole review finished because two questions were answered.

## Test One Assumption and Preserve Its Limits

A comparison becomes more useful when it shows which conclusions depend on a chosen assumption. Keep each test in its own section. Do not edit source facts to create a more convenient case.

For the fictional projected payment row, assume the two annual amounts stay unchanged for five years. Maple would pay $75,000 and Cypress $82,500 over that period. The nominal difference is $7,500. This calculation excludes the timing value of money, personal taxes, changes in payments, and cash received at exit.

That difference is not the advantage in total return. A different exit value or a payment reduction could change the result. No probability is assigned. The test answers only what those fixed annual amounts add to over the chosen five years.

Now test one change: Cypress pays $13,500 per year instead of the projected $16,500, while Maple's assumed $15,000 stays unchanged. Cypress's five-year total becomes $67,500, which is $7,500 below Maple's $75,000. The change does not predict a cut. It shows that the earlier comparison depended on the payment assumption.

Name the reason for choosing a scenario when one exists. It may come from a specific cost risk, a lease event, or a personal planning concern. If it is simply a stress amount selected for discussion, label it that way. Do not describe it as a likely outcome without supporting evidence.

Keep the common ground fixed while testing one change. If you lower one payment, change the exit date, and add a new tax estimate at once, the reader may not know which factor caused the difference. Separate tests make the limits easier to see and the next question easier to identify.

## Write a Comparison Note Someone Else Can Recheck

Begin the final note with the differences you can support. Avoid a vague claim that one offering is best. State which rows are comparable and which remain limited. A reader should be able to understand the result without guessing what blanks or colors mean.

For Maple and Cypress, a fair note might say that the one tested transaction fee is equal under the stated assumptions. Cypress has a higher first-year payment projection on the now-aligned basis. The appraisal needed for Cypress's chosen loan-to-value measure remains unavailable. Transfer terms require their own review even though the missing section has arrived.

Then state what the note does not resolve. It does not establish total investment costs, likely realized return, personal tax treatment, or suitability. These limits should match the actual work, not appear as a general disclaimer that excuses unsupported claims elsewhere.

Add the key sources and unresolved requests. A useful request identifies the field, the missing evidence, and the person responsible for following up. “Please provide the property value measure and date used for the stated leverage claim” is more actionable than “send more research.”

Ask another reader to trace a few important entries back to their sources. Have them check one factual statement, one calculation, and one unresolved row. If they cannot reproduce the entry, improve the citation or definition. This review can catch a copied figure from the wrong period even when the arithmetic is correct.

An AI summary can help organize the file. It needs the same checks. Open each cited source, verify the passage, and confirm that a condition or footnote was not lost. A fluent sentence is not evidence that the source exists or supports the conclusion. Keep the responsible human review step visible.

## Update the File Without Rewriting Its History

Save the version used for each meaningful decision. A later amendment, report, or explanation may change a field. Preserve the earlier file so you can see which information was available at the time. A current summary and a dated history serve different purposes.

Use a short change log: field changed, old entry, new entry, source, and reason. If a correction affects a calculation, identify that calculation too. Updating the loan balance should prompt a check of ratios that depend on it. Updating an address should not silently alter a performance conclusion.

Recheck the comparison scope when the proposed purchase changes. A different class, amount, professional relationship, or closing date may affect the costs or terms being compared. Do not carry an earlier conclusion forward simply because the sponsor and property names look familiar.

Finally, leave the unresolved category active. Some questions will close with documents. Others concern future events that remain uncertain even after careful research. A useful comparison makes that boundary clear and helps the investor decide which questions to bring to the next professional discussion.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What Is the Best Starting Point for a DST Comparison?

Write one question and identify the exact offerings, versions, and purchase routes. Choose the dollar amount and review cutoff. Then define a few material fields before collecting values. This keeps the file focused on the decision instead of becoming a pile of unrelated statistics.

### Should Missing Information Count as a Zero?

No. Zero is a specific value that needs support. Missing evidence means the reviewed records do not establish the answer. Label the gap and request the relevant source. Do not silently treat an undisclosed fee as free or an unknown result as a loss.

### Can I Compare an Actual Payment Rate With a Projection?

You can display both with clear labels, but they do not establish a like-for-like actual result. Identify the periods and methods. If you want a prospective comparison, obtain matching projections and preserve their uncertainty. Keep historical payments in a separate field.

### Why Might Different Fee Rates Produce the Same Dollars?

The rates may apply to different bases. Two percent of $15 million equals one percent of $30 million. Investor-level costs also depend on the allocation rules. Matching one fee does not establish equal total costs, so keep other fees in separate rows.

### Does More Complete Evidence Mean the Offering Is Better?

It means the reviewer can answer more of the chosen questions from that file. It does not prove a better financial outcome. Missing evidence can prevent a decision, but the absence itself does not establish that the unknown term or result is unfavorable.

### Should I Add the Fields Into an Overall DST Score?

Only use a scoring method you can justify and explain, including what the score cannot mean. For most personal comparisons, separate findings and firm conditions are clearer. A high mark for communication should not cancel a cash-access requirement that the investment cannot meet.

### How Do I Know the Comparison Is Ready to Use?

Another reader should be able to trace important entries to their sources and reproduce the math. The note should state the remaining gaps and the questions it does not answer. Readiness for a discussion is different from approval to invest; the final decision needs the relevant professional and personal review.

## About Sequoia Research

Sequoia Research, LLC provides independent research on DSTs and other real estate investment offerings. This educational library helps readers compare claims, preserve source evidence, and frame questions for their financial, tax, and legal advisers.

## Sources

- [SEC, Private Placements Under Regulation D](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/private-placements-under-regulation-d-updated-investor-bulletin) — originally August 17, 2022; updated September 21, 2026; accessed October 16, 2026.
- [FINRA, Regulatory Notice 23-08](https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/23-08) — May 9, 2023; accessed October 16, 2026.
- [SEC, Investor Bulletin on Performance Claims](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins-47) — September 15, 2022; accessed October 16, 2026.
- [SEC, How Fees and Expenses Affect Your Investment Portfolio](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/general-resources/news-alerts/alerts-bulletins/investor-bulletins/updated) — July 23, 2025; accessed October 16, 2026.
- [IRS, Revenue Ruling 2004-86](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-04-86.pdf) — 2004; conditional described-DST treatment; accessed October 16, 2026.
- [FINRA, 2026 Annual Regulatory Oversight Report](https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2025-12/2026-annual-regulatory-oversight-report.pdf) — published December 2025; printed pages 53–55; accessed October 16, 2026.


## Related Reading and Tools

- [Delaware Statutory Trust 1031 Reviews (2026): What Exchangers Should Check Before Relying on Them](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/delaware-statutory-trust-1031-reviews-2026-what-exchangers-should-check-before-relying-on-them)
- [1031 DST Reviews: A Practical Reading Guide for Exchangers](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/1031-dst-reviews-a-practical-reading-guide-for-exchangers)
- [DST Due Diligence: Source-Linked Diligence Binder](https://sequoia-research.com/writing/dst-due-diligence-source-linked-diligence-binder)