Re PCL -- minor quibble with the Barron's article.
The author states "like all REITs, Plum Creek pays out 90% of earnings via dividends." REITs are required to pay out 90% of their taxable income other than capital gains as dividends, not 90% of earnings, though the two are generally close, on pain of losing REIT status. But virtually all REITs pay out 100% of their ordinary taxable income as dividends, because if they fail to do so, they are subject to corporate tax on the difference. Many REITs pay out more, this leads to dividends having a return of capital component, i.e., not being subject to tax to shareholders to that extent. Timber REITs are somewhat special, as Dew has noted, gains from the sale of timber are treated as capital gains, and, accordingly, dividends paid by PCL are generally taxed at capital gain rates. In theory REITs, including Plum Creek can retain their net capital gains and pay tax thereon, and can elect (like mutual funds) to pass along a credit to their shareholders for the tax paid, but it is extremely rare for a REIT to do that.
It used to be said that the market did not give REITs any credit for extra depreciation or a return of capital component, and for that reason, REITs did not try very hard to get a "basis step up" in structuring acquisitions. That ceased to be true some years ago, it is now common place to structure REIT M&A transactions in a manner that creates a basis step up. I've seen deals where this is done even where the acquisition was purely for stock, e.g., the Public Storage acquisition of Shurgard.