Discussion:Question on Schedule D from beginner
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Question on Schedule D from beginner
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Question on Schedule D from beginner
Soontobecpa (talk|edits) said: | 17 July 2008 |
| Hello,
Just had a question on a schedule D. I have a client who sold a house(personal) for 192k and cost basis was 150k. Is the amount from schedule D that is reported as capital gains on line 13 of form1040 = 42k? (thats what I have, but it looks like a rather large amount to be reported as a capital gain, meaning the whole gain being taxable as income) What is the 28% gain(loss) for? I've read up on this but am still a little confused, sorry a bit new at this and would greatly appreciate any help or guidance (I meet with my boss once a week, so didnt get a chance to ask him yet). Thank you | |
| 17 July 2008 | |
| are you aware of IRC §121?
Have you read any IRS Pubs? we've got to know how 'new' you are vs how close you are to being a CPA | |
Soontobecpa (talk|edits) said: | 17 July 2008 |
| Yes, oh and it was used primarily as rental property.
Thanks for the reply. | |
Soontobecpa (talk|edits) said: | 17 July 2008 |
| Sitting for the exam this fall. | |
| 17 July 2008 | |
| check out Form 4797
you seem to be changing your story personal house now rental if rental, read IRC §1250 Lord help your client if your boss won't. | |
| July 17, 2008 | |
| Well, sooner or later, heh heh, a. Personal means personal residence, which means tax free normally. A rental is a rental, and there are two parts to gains. The recapture of depreciation taken, at 25% flat rate normally, and any gain over that is capital gain. Form 4797 is the place, not the Sch. D. | |
| 17 July 2008 | |
| Soon: Why wouldn't the taxpayer have to pay tax on his gain? If he makes money, he pays taxes.
But that's not the end of the story. In each of the years in which he rented the property, he took a deduction for depreciation and thereby reduced his taxes. In fact, the property did not depreciate - it appreciated. Because he took a deduction on a ficticious event (not only allowed, but used to be mandatory), he now has to recapture that depreciation in the year of sale. For example, say the depreciation totalled $10,000 over the years, he would pay tax on the difference between the sale price and the basis at a maximum capital gains rate of 15%. $42k x 15% = $6.3 k (plus state tax). He would also pay capital gains tax on the depreciation recapture at 25%. $10k x 28% = $2.800 (plus state tax). Wouldn't it be nice if the story ended here...but it doesn't. The full amount of the gain is added to his other income for determining his marginal tax bracket. It frequently happens that someone pays a higher tax rate as a result. Oh, and one more small item. AMT. Capital gains can push someone into AMT income level so that taxes can go up even more. So, what seems like a simple situation has several levels to it and can require an extensive amount of time to determine the best course of action for the client. It's nice when the client comes to you prospectively, but most often the client comes to you after the fact and then is incredulous that you can't make things better. To answer your other question, 28% rate is on the sale of collectibles (such as artwork) & qualified small business stock. | |
| 17 July 2008 | |
| And one more small item .... Rental activity is considered passive.If your client had prior year rental losses and if his adjusted income exceeded a certain threshhold then the rental losses were suspended on that year tax return . Now in the year of the sale you bring back the suspended losses into the picture . | |
| July 19, 2008 | |
| Marcilio, from your above post:
allowed, but used to be mandatory, I thought taking depreciation on rental property WAS required....have I missed a change in the law? Thanks | |
| 19 July 2008 | |
| Yes..within the last couple of years..don't have the cite handy at the moment. | |
| 19 July 2008 | |
| Oops..not exactly like I suggested. The old "allowed or allowable" has gone away, & been replaced with a tax benefit rule.
Sec. 1016 Basically, you are not allowed to forego depreciation in order to use it in a later year when it may be more advantageous. In the case of depreciation allowed or allowable (under straight line), if you did not receive a tax benefit, such as in an unallowable passive loss, then you do not have to reduce basis by the depreciation. It's up to the TP to document the lack of tax benefit. | |
| 19 July 2008 | |
| There's not a cul-de-sac of the tax law where there's any peace. | |
| July 21, 2008 | |
| Thanks for the clarification....was afraid I'd missed something really important. I'm in a constant debate with a local preparer who takes ZERO depreciation on his client's rental properties to avoid 'recapture' in the future. | |
| 21 July 2008 | |
| I hope that preparer has good E&O insurance. I doubt that he would qualify, though. | |
| July 21, 2008 | |
| Unfortunately, he's doing it to/with/for several good 'acquaintances' of mine, and until someone gets busted by the IRS, they like his version of the tax law more than mine...
There's a chance that there hasn't been any tax benefit due to suspended losses; I'm not that familiar with their tax situation. However, the theory he's putting forth IS wrong. | |
| 25 July 2008 | |
| I can't fathom why they would like his version better. Does he offer the fable that there will be fewer tax implications in the future? | |
| July 25, 2008 | |
| Yep, he has them convinced that foregoing the current deprec. deduction and therefore not having to recapture it when sold is sound advice....completely ignoring the time value of money, etc. He (the taxpreparer) also provides financial planning, sells insurance products, not quite sure what else he dabbles in. Can you tell my opinion of this particular preparer? | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 25 July 2008 |
| But there are 'legal' ways of avoiding large recaptures. Whether they make sense is doubtful, but e.g.,being conservative when separating the land from the building at least makes it sound like some thought was given to the matter. Where I live the land can comprise 70-80 percent of the value of a property, espcially when you are talking about something put up before WW II and built on sandy soil.
I used to have a sign hanging in my Philadelphia office that would fit this guy: If A--holes could fly, this place would be an airport. | |
| 25 July 2008 | |
| We were all beginners at first. But I'm glad I'm not a client of any beginner. | |
| July 25, 2008 | |
| Old habits perhaps? Not so long ago, if/when you depreciated your home office portion, on the sale you had income and tax, and split the sale of the house proportionately. Due to the usual increases in RE values, you'd always pay far more tax than you saved in the piddly depreciation. It's still hard to come around to the idea of depreciating a home office..... | |
| July 25, 2008 | |
| Except he's advising this on pure, 100% residential rental properties. No OIH in the picture. And he's not a beginner....in business 25+ years.
I do remember, JR1, those days with OIH that you had to make sure the business use stopped well before any sale was contemplated. | |


