February 3, 2007

PMI Tax Deduction May Not Apply to Refinances

Posted by TheLoanProfessor

Section 6050H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to mortgage interest) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

In general.–Premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage insurance by a taxpayer during the taxable year in connection with acquisition indebtedness with respect to a qualified residence of the taxpayer shall be treated for purposes of this section as interest which is qualified residence interest.

The Act defines qualified mortgage insurance as that provided by the VA, the FHA, or the Rural Housing Administration or by private carriers and specifies that it be treated as interest on a qualified residence. This, however, is modified by the following "that premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage insurance by a taxpayer during the taxable year in connection with acquisition indebtedness." This is interpreted by BNA as meaning that the deduction is only available to homeowners who assume PMI payments during 2007. In other words, you may not qualify for the deduction if you bought a house subject to PMI in 2006 or earlier even though you are currently paying premiums.

Deductions seem to be further limited to 2007 by the following: no benefit will currently accrue to taxpayers for any amount paid or accrued beyond December 31 of this year "or properly allocable to any period after that date." We are not lawyers or tax authorities and we advise you, strongly, to consult your own tax professional, but it appears that this deduction is only available to taxpayers during the current calendar year and that paying premiums ahead as taxpayers are often advised to do with mortgage interest or property taxes at year end when deductions are needed will not work in this situation.

Read more…


Permalink • Print • Comment

October 29, 2006

Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Under Scrutiny

Watch out: Home real estate is back in the sights of Capitol Hill tax reformers.

The staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has proposed new options for closing the "tax gap," the difference between federal taxes that should be paid under current tax rules and the amounts collected by the Internal Revenue Service. Recommendations from the committee staff carry substantial weight with members of the Senate and House, and frequently get included in tax legislation.

High on the list of methods to collect more of what is owed is to tighten up on homeowners’ billowing write-offs of local and state property taxes, which cost the government about $20 billion a year in revenues.

Under the federal tax code, local real estate taxes on homes generally are deductible. But they are not deductible if the tax payments cover commonplace special assessments designed to pay for improvements that directly benefit taxpayers’ real estate. Examples include local "user fees" for water mains, sewer lines, sidewalks, trees and trash collections.

The problem, according to the tax committee staff, is that current federal law does not require local governments to tell the IRS about property owners’ mixes of regular taxes and nondeductible special-benefit levies. Local governments often provide annual property tax statements to residents with breakouts of assessments. But many homeowners simply deduct the bottom-line taxes paid.

As a result, according to the committee, homeowners get to write off hundreds of millions of dollars a year for tax payments that are not legally deductible. In a 1993 study, the Government Accountability Office estimated that $400 million of that year’s $11 billion in property tax write-offs claimed by homeowners were improper. With deductions this year running nearly double that amount, wrongly claimed write-offs could be in the $700 million range or more.

The committee proposes two possible solutions: Require local governments to provide copies of homeowner tax statements to the IRS with breakouts distinguishing between regular and special-benefit assessments; or require mortgage lenders and loan servicers to report details of homeowners’ property tax escrows with similar breakouts.

Read more…



Permalink • Print • Comment

June 3, 2006

Shielding Your Real Estate Profits From Uncle Sam


The soaring real-estate prices of the past few years are helping to feed the popularity of a complex tax-savings technique called a "private annuity trust."

The strategy is being promoted as a way for investors to defer hefty capital-gains taxes on the sale of highly appreciated assets — especially real estate — and save on estate taxes, while also generating a stream of income.

The trusts are being widely marketed not just by tax lawyers and accountants, but also by investment advisers and insurance agents — who may also stand to gain big fees by managing trust investments — and real-estate brokers, who hope that the strategy might help clinch property sales and attract listings.

In a private annuity trust, you essentially exchange appreciated assets for fixed annuity payments, which spreads out your capital-gains taxes over many years. The transactions are being pitched to everyone from owners of a primary or secondary residence that has risen dramatically in value to owners of numerous investment properties. The trusts are just one of a number of strategies that people are using in an attempt to trim taxes amid the fevered real-estate market of recent years.

The growing popularity of private annuity trusts, however, has sparked heated debate among tax advisers, with skeptics saying that some arrangements might be too aggressive under allowable tax rules and might not generate all the tax benefits some promoters claim. Some tax lawyers have published articles or created Web sites criticizing the trusts, with titles such as "Private Annuity Trusts: The Numbers Don’t Support the Hype."

Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service has been scrutinizing a growing number of private annuity trust transactions, and though it has not banned the practice, the agency says it has seen numerous cases that it feels do not pass muster.

Proponents of private annuity trusts, for their part, say the transaction, when done correctly, is a perfectly acceptable tax-savings technique that can defer capital-gains taxes for years and minimize estate taxes. "If you evaluate it and set it up right and then operate it appropriately, a private annuity trust can be a great tool to use for estate transfer, asset preservation and tax deferral," says Curt Wyatt, a Palm Desert, Calif., trust adviser, who manages nearly $800 million in private annuity trust assets, business generated over the past three years.

Wendy Phillips, a Landers, Calif., real-estate investor, set up a private annuity trust after attending a seminar on capital-gains strategies at an apartment-owners’ trade show. Ms. Phillips faced capital-gains taxes of some $900,000 on the sale of several rental properties near Palm Springs, and wanted to avoid paying those taxes upfront. "It seemed like a lot out of our pockets at one time," says Ms. Phillips, who will turn 62 years old this month. She and her husband chose to defer the private annuity payments until they reach age 70, which means they can delay the tax hit for several years.

The National Association of Financial and Estate Planning, or NAFEP, a big provider of private annuity trusts, says that business has doubled every year since 2003 and is continuing to grow this year. The strategy is "becoming more mainstream and more people and attorneys are becoming more comfortable with it," says Roy Barker, director of operations at NAFEP, which is based in Salt Lake City.

Private annuity trusts can cost anywhere from about $3,000 to well over $10,000 to set up, plus additional administration and investment fees that can run upwards of 1% of trust assets. Because of these costs, Mr. Barker says the strategy makes the most sense for people who have at least $200,000 of capital gains to defer, as well as people who might be subject to the estate tax. (The current federal estate-tax exemption is $2 million per person or $4 million per married couple.)

Private annuity trusts are complicated, involving lots of convoluted steps and tax rules. In a typical arrangement, you sell appreciated assets — residential or commercial real estate, artwork, securities, even closely held businesses — to a trust, in exchange for a series of fixed annuity payments that last for the rest of your life. The trust then goes ahead and sells the appreciated asset to an end buyer. The cash proceeds are invested by the trust, and are used to fund your annuity payments.

By selling the property in exchange for an annuity, you avoid paying the upfront capital gains that you would have owed if you had simply sold the asset outright. Instead, you are taxed on the annuity payments when they come out of the trust, which spreads out the taxes over a longer period of time. What’s more, you can defer receiving the annuity payments for years, thereby further postponing your tax payments.

The strategy also has estate-planning benefits. When you die, the annuity payments stop and whatever is left over in the trust is considered out of your estate and isn’t subject to estate taxes. The annuity payments you receive during your lifetime are considered part of your estate unless you spend down the money.

Be aware, however, that the strategy is on the IRS’s radar screen. The agency doesn’t like arrangements in which sellers continue to control trust assets or properties that were purportedly sold. The IRS is also concerned that, before the trust is even set up, a buyer has already contractually agreed to take the property. In that case, the government could ultimately view the trust as an improper shelter, set up chiefly to avoid immediate capital-gains taxes rather than providing real economic substance.

The annuity is termed a "private annuity" because it is a special payment contract between you and the trust, as opposed to a commercial annuity issued by an insurance company. The amount of the annuity payments stays fixed over your lifetime and is determined by a formula that’s set by the IRS, based on factors that include your age, the property’s sale price and an IRS-determined interest rate. The older you are — or the longer you defer the annuity — the bigger the payments will be.

Read more…



Permalink • Print • Comment

April 21, 2006

The Wealthy’s Tax Secrets

 

tax_time.jpg 

 

Under the Revenue Act of 1934, anyone who filed a federal tax return would also complete another — pink — form, with his or her name, address, income, deductions and total taxes paid. Everything on the pink slips was public information, available to reporters, nosy neighbors or former spouses alike.

________________________________________

tax_salary.jpg

At the time, the country was staggering through the Great Depression. A quarter of eligible workers were unemployed, household income averaged less than $1,100 ($16,000 in today’s dollars). Only about 7% of the population earned enough to require filing federal tax returns. So the revelation that some people with incomes in the millions had legally paid no taxes in 1931 and 1932 provoked widespread indignation.

 

______________________________________________

 

Robert La Follette, Jr., took the latter position. In 1934, Mr. La Follette, a Progressive senator from Wisconsin, introduced the pink-slip amendment to a tax bill, and the measure passed easily. Starting in 1935, wealthy taxpayers would reveal to the world how much they earned and how much they were sending to Washington.

 

 

________________________________________________

 

 

The group’s biggest challenge was to win over at least some of the vast majority of Americans who were too poor to be affected by the pink-slip law. Mr. Pitcairn appealed to their paranoia: If one day they earned enough to file pink slips, how would they feel about their finances being open to business competitors, high-powered salesmen, blackmailers and, the group’s most potent bugaboo, kidnappers.

 

____________________________________________________

tax_cheat.gif

Kidnapping was much on Americans’ mind. Two years earlier, Charles Lindbergh Jr. had been snatched from his crib and found dead a few months later. The alleged kidnapper, Bruno Hauptmann, was arrested in late 1934, and after a widely publicized trial, was convicted in February 1935, just as the pink-slip debate was raging

 

__________________________________________________

 

Read more…

 

 

Permalink • Print • Comment