What if I really want to do is take the tax advanteges of a REIT, and the operating flexability of C-Corp ownership?

Implications: This line of reasoning is pretty close to the Timber Relief legislation that WY has been lobbying pretty heavily for, especially from the states of Washington and Arkansas, which contain many acres of Weyerhaeuser lands. The logic is that C-Corp (or Fee) timberlands are "double taxed" as taxes are paid once at the corporate level, and then again by the shareholder as part of the dividend.  REITs are paying about 15% taxes whereas Fee taxation is in the 28-30% range.  Plum Creek states on their website that they derive virtually no regular income, and Plum Creeks revenues are largely long term capital gains - with tax benefit.  WY current stance is interesting after they added REIT experience at the board level last year, and now appear to using the timber tax relief process as a "bridging strategy" to address shareholder concerns.

Analysis: WY course of action has been pretty consistent in resisting the call for monetization of the 6.8 MM acres of US ownership.

They appear to be shaped by several issues

WY understands that there is no way to get back into the timberland business after divestiture.  There are now many TIMOs with large war chests purchasing former C-Corp and other lands.  TIMOs seem to understand the wide array of benefits derived from ownership such as financial risk, solid returns, and high profits from the remaining HBU lands.

The other option that is getting some attention is privatization and of these timberlands.  There was a quote last week by a Senior Analyst that that deal could be put together with "6 phone calls"