|
Posted by kastnna on April 18, 2008, 6:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> (1) in a limited case, California does try to make an equivalence
> between owners and renters. Homeowners typically receive a homestead
> exemption on their property tax, worth approximately $70 off their
> annual property tax bill. California renters, below certain income
> levels, receive a renters' credit of $60-120 to equate to this break to
> homeowners, since the landlord does not get the exemption on a property
> that is not his primary residence, and the legislature figured, someone
> ought to get it.
Sorry for being off-topic, but WOW! Really? Only $70 off their
property tax bill?
Where I live (Alabama) a homestead exemption reduces our assesed home
value from 20% ot 10%. I save $1000s every year by having a homestead
exemption.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something...
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Mark Bole on April 19, 2008, 11:29 am
Please log in for more thread options
kastnna wrote:
>
>> (1) in a limited case, California does try to make an equivalence
>> between owners and renters. Homeowners typically receive a homestead
>> exemption on their property tax, worth approximately $70 off their
>> annual property tax bill.
> Sorry for being off-topic, but WOW! Really? Only $70 off their
> property tax bill?
>
> Where I live (Alabama) a homestead exemption reduces our assesed home
> value from 20% ot 10%. I save $1000s every year by having a homestead
> exemption.
It's California's Prop. 13. From Wikipedia:
"Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of
residential property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This
'assessed value,' however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per
year, until and unless the property is resold." (or improvements are
made to the property, which are added to assessed value at cost).
In addition, some counties allow older homeowners to "transfer" their
low assessed value from former home to new home.
The homestead exemption reduces assessed value by $7,000, hence about
$70 off the annual bill. (I say "about" because local special
assessments can result in a tax bill that is more like 1.2%).
In other words, in California the benefit of "locking in" a property tax
amount based on your purchase price will over time dwarf any homestead
exemption benefit -- assuming that "over time" includes a period of net
rise in property values, unlike the last two years and next year.
Interestingly, this also allows a convenient technique for identifying
taxpayers who might be incorrectly deducting mortgage interest on more
than $100K of equity debt -- if their property tax is relatively low
compared to their mortgage interest deduction, that is a strong
indicator they have owned the house for a long time and have "cashed
out" in one or more re-finances without plowing the money back into the
house (which would raise the assessed value and thus the property tax).
-Mark Bole
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Mark Bole on April 18, 2008, 12:03 am
Please log in for more thread options Ernie Klein wrote:
[...]
> Why should renters be different.
Why should a renter who pays in cash be any different from a renter who
pays in services?
-Mark Bole
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Ernie Klein on April 18, 2008, 12:20 am
Please log in for more thread options
> Ernie Klein wrote:
> [...]
> > Why should renters be different.
>
> Why should a renter who pays in cash be any different from a renter who
> pays in services?
The OP was about forgiveness of rent in exchange for both materials and
service. If the question is accommodations in exchange for service then
I would agree that this is a barter and a 1099 is improper.
--
-Ernie-
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Seth on April 23, 2008, 9:26 am
Please log in for more thread options >Ernie Klein wrote:
>> For the same reason my daughter has provided labor and materials in
>> exchange of forgiveness of rent - to have the advantage of the
>> "improved" property while they lived there. There might not be a
>> profit motive at all other than to enjoy the improvements.
>
>That's like saying I love my job and have no profit motive, only the
>side effect of enjoyment of deposits into my bank account.
That's fine; then, since receiving money isn't your motive, you don't
mind that a chunk of it goes to the IRS.
More seriously, the IRS taxes income independent of motive. (Whether
losses are deductible does dependon motive.)
Seth
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Is Landlord Double Dipping? | April 16, 2008, 2:20 pm |
| Re: Is Landlord Double Dipping? | April 16, 2008, 7:33 pm |
| Re: Is Landlord Double Dipping? | April 17, 2008, 3:27 pm |
| Re: Is Landlord Double Dipping? | April 23, 2008, 8:11 pm |
| Re: Is Landlord Double Dipping? | April 23, 2008, 8:48 pm |
| Double entry and double taxation? | March 14, 2007, 12:03 am |
| landlord question - how to refigure schedule E for AMT? | March 20, 2008, 11:24 pm |
| Taxable SS double that of last year? | February 6, 2007, 10:36 pm |
| Avoiding Double Taxation | March 3, 2008, 12:06 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap