Discussion deleted
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
| 8 March 2006 | |
| Another life estate question - 3 years ago, mother sold house to daughter for 1.00 - was a life estate, mother continues to live in house - 2005 mother (alive) sells house. Daughter gets portion of proceeds based on the percentage of life estate. Mother gets balance.
Daughter's basis now is mother's cost from 3 years ago? Any way this is a "gift" now in 2005? Have had discussions with lawyer that set this up - not much help | |
| 8 March 2006 | |
| Gift was 3 years ago. Daughter's basis is allocated by tables at that time. 709 required. | |
| 9 March 2006 | |
| Daughter's basis is NOT cost from mother a few years ago? The basis would come from the tables? | |
| 10 March 2006 | |
| Percentage of mother's cost basis is determined by IRS annuity tables. based on mother's age on date of gift & 120% of AFR. | |
| 10 March 2006 | |
| hi cost basis will change between the rmdr and life estate over time from the date of gift and the sale. the two pieces are redetermined at the time of sale by the irs tables based on mother/daughter age at sale (whoever has life estate). your facts are unclear who has the life estate?.bye | |
| 10 March 2006 | |
| Thanks Wes and Dennis - Mother is grantor - granted to herself the life estate (yr 2002) - Time of sale - yr 2005 - Mother received proceeds of 20% and Daughter 80% - based on actuarial tables.
Need the basis for daughter - since she received 80,000. Do I need the value of life estate in 2002 and 2005 ? Then take 80% for daughter? Thanks | |
| 10 March 2006 | |
| My understanding is that in your case daughter's basis is established on date of gift, division of proceeds is date of sale. | |
| 10 March 2006 | |
| I agree - date of gift 2003 establishes the basis for daughter - so I use the actuarial table to figure basis for 2002? | |
| 11 March 2006 | |
| hello sorry i have researched this and the basis changes with time just like the proceeds and is determined not at gift but at sale. dont have time to get my cites but i see this 10 times a year, bye | |
| 11 March 2006 | |
| I have been researching. According to NATP, I use the factor at date of gift. However, I have a problem with this, as the factoring at date of gift has changed since date of sale - daughter received 80% of proceeds - basis at time of gift according to those tables were not even close to %. I will keep researching | |
| 11 March 2006 | |
| Sorry, NATP is wrong. WesR gave you the correct answer.
See Reg § 1.1015-1(b), Reg § 1.1014-5(a)(1), Reg § 1.1014-5(a)(3). | |
[SPAM post removed by moderator]
| 14 July 2008 | |
| Dronc, thank you for bringing up this old thread. Now we all know who Wes R is!!!!! | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 27 August 2008 |
| TR | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 27 August 2008 |
| "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1907. | |
| 27 August 2008 | |
| while that is certainly a great quote, I was actually thinking of Bette Midler (now appearing at Caesar's where Cher is also performing) in the movie Big Business with Lily Tomlin. One of the best '80s movies out there. | |
| 27 August 2008 | |
| by the way, please everyone ban DroncOlodo who keeps editing this thread with spam which I believe contains links to malware. How he keeps coming back to this one thread I don't know, but several of us have been deleting his posts to keep the rest of your computer's safe. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 27 August 2008 |
| Matter of taste, I suppose, but I put Ruthless People a shade ahead of this, but put it ahead of Outrageous Fortune. I think it was the deVito-Middler pairing I liked, whereas in others the men are not vile enough. All were good 80's Decade of Greed films.
There is something about Bette that is like her predecessor with the same first name, Ms. Davis, who once she was big, was often featured with male actors like George Brent, Paul Henreid and the like. Worst example for Ms. Middler is First Wives Club were the male husbands are cyphers. Without looking it up, try to name one of them. Perhaps we should annoint this discussion with garlic to keep Dronc away. | |
