|
Posted by MTW on July 23, 2007, 1:16 am
Please log in for more thread options
> First of all, OP called it a second "home" not a rental
> property. That's not definitive, but I've seldom if ever
> heard people call a property a home if it's a rental.
I guess there is a first time for everything. :-)
> But if that were the reason, the CPA should have explained
> it. That's not a hard concept to understand.
I'm under the impression that the CPA did explain it
properly. But, it probably wasn't the answer that the poster
wanted to hear.
> But in addition to that, the passive loss rules don't apply
> (up to a limit) to rental real estate of the owner "actively
> participates" in its management.
Of course, that limit is phased out as AGI increases over
$100,000 which I assume is the case here.
> I suppose there is a small chance the CPA is right. But if
> he is and either wouldn't or couldn't explain it so the OP
> could understand it, he needs a new CPA anyway.
It sounds to me like the CPA and the poster don't
communicate well with each other, but I'll withhold judgment
as to whether one side is more to blame than the other. :-)
MTW
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap