Discussion:Mortgage interest 2nd home

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 16:15, 16 February 2009
Smokeytax (Talk | contribs)
(I weigh in agree)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 17:52, 16 February 2009
Jdugancpa (Talk | contribs)
(Been down this r)
Next diff →
Line 146: Line 146:
Back to work. Back to work.
 +}}
 +
 +{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Jdugancpa|Date=16 February 2009|Text=Been down this road before and Riley has already weighed in.
 +
 +http://taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:Home_Acquisition_Debt_vs_Home_Equity_Debt
 +
}} }}

Revision as of 17:52, 16 February 2009

Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Mortgage interest 2nd home
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Mortgage interest 2nd home

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
This should be a simple question but it's been one of those days. I did a search and am more confused. Facts are fairly simple. Taxpayer has his residence worth $500K. He wants to build 2nd home (no rental) so he takes out home equity of $300,000 against his residence to build 2nd home.

Interest on what portion is deducitble?

He hasn't secured a mortgage on the 2nd home yet but is going to do that. Construction ended 25 months ago. When he gets that mortgage how much is deductible?

Thanks. It's been a bad day.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Interest on first mortgage of primary home (assuming it is all home acquisition debt) is fully deductible. Interest on second mortgage of primary residence is home equity debt, limited to $100k principal. Matters not that it was used to construct second residence; does not qualify as home acq debt. If the second mortgage is 100% incurred for the construction of the 2nd residence and is refi'd to a new first mortgage on the second home, I believe it will then qualify as home acq debt, since the proceeds will be directly traceable to the acquisition of the second res. But you need to look at the regs to know for certain.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Facts are important but follow this. It may ALL be deductible.

under 481 §163(h)(4)(A)(i) interest on a 1st and 2nd qualified residence are deductible. A quailified residence, if under construction, MUST be completed in under 24 months. If the 2nd residence was completed and the entire mortgage is a lien on the 1st home it will qualify as a qualified residence and NOT fall under equity interest rules.

Cite from BNA follows... Two types of home mortgage debt produce deductible qualified residence interest; (1) “acquisition debt,” which is secured debt used to purchase, build, or substantially improve a qualified residence, and (2) secured “home equity debt” up to the lesser of $100,000 or the amount of equity in the residence (fair market value minus the principal amount of the mortgages on the residence). See ¶2330.02.H.3.e, below. Interest on acquisition debt is deductible as long as the debt does not exceed the cost of the residence and its improvements, up to a maximum of $1,000,000. See ¶2330.02.H.3.d, below. end cite

Sounds as if the LOC debt is in fact converted to acquisition debt IF (a big IF), the 2nd home qualifies as a residence.

That may help.

Cite

The taxpayer's “qualified residences” are the taxpayer's principal residence and one other residence chosen and used by the taxpayer as a residence. The taxpayer can have up to two qualified residences. 484 A residence includes a house, condominium, mobile home, boat, or house trailer that contains sleeping space and toilet and cooking facilities. Personal property that is not a fixture under state law cannot be a residence. 485 In certain cases, time-shares, residences under construction, and stock in cooperative housing corporations can be residences (see ¶2330.02.H.3.b.(2) - (4), below). A residence may be a qualified residence even if the taxpayer does not hold legal title (that is title and the mortgage, if any, is held by another person). 486

end cite

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Let's say the taxpayer decides to take out a $300,000 mortgage on the 2nd home with the 2nd home as collateral to pay off the $300,000 home equity on the primary residence.

Is the interest on the $300K mortgage deductible?

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Is 163(h)(3)(B)(II) the problem here?

(B) Acquisition indebtedness

         (i) In general
           The term acquisition indebtedness means any
         indebtedness which -
             (I) is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or
           substantially improving any qualified residence of the
           taxpayer, and
             (II) is secured by such residence.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Construction in Progress in NOT a residence. For the 2nd house to be a "qualified residence" it must have been completed in less than 2 years. then one can apply the law, currently the status of the 2nd property has not been determined.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
The 2nd home was completed within 24 months.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Is 163(h)(3)(B)(II) the problem here?

I interpret the "any indebtedness" and "any qualified residence" to mean either the 1st or 2nd.

I think you are fine here.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Let me remove the construction from my example and make the new example very simple.

Taxpayer has a residence with no mortgage against it, FMV $500,000. Taxpayer take out a home equity of $200,000 against primary residence and buys 2nd home. No rental involved.

Is mortgage in interest on $100,000 or $200,000 deductible?

Futenma (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
In my opinion, $100,000 - Home equity debt is limited to $100,000; even though you can trace the entire $200,000 to the 2nd residence, its not acquisition debt because its not secured by the 2nd home.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Futenma

Read the code section and I think you will find it doesn't have to be. Secured by ANY residence is what it says.

Futenma (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
(3)(B)(i)...

(I) - is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer, and

(II) - is secured by SUCH residence.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Is anyone aware of case law testing the "such" residence issue?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
"(i) In general. The term “home equity indebtedness” means any indebtedness (other than acquisition indebtedness) secured by a qualified residence to the extent the aggregate amount of such indebtedness does not exceed—

(I) the fair market value of such qualified residence, reduced by

(II) the amount of acquisition indebtedness with respect to such residence."

Definition 'such' Of this kind or of a kind specified or implied. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/such

It strikes me how often Tax Court judges go to the dictionary to define words.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Futenma,

I read it slightly differently than you and I believe the law would support me. It says SUCH residence, I agree but such residence is ANY qualified residence. It does NOT say it must be THAT residence only must be one of the two. We are still in compliance. There may be case law, rulings that define this differently than my reading and of ourse that will over rule. But my reading is that ONE residence, will work to have a debt for 2 as long as the second is a qualified residence as well as the first.

Good discussion,

Futenma (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
I hope I'm wrong because I like your answer better than mine. Where's Riley when you him?

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
I would also like to hear Riley's take on this issue and my question 9 posts up.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

11 February 2009
Rev Rul 2005-11:

"Qualified residence interest is defined in § 163(h)(3) as any interest that is paid or accrued during the taxable year on acquisition indebtedness or home equity indebtedness with respect to any qualified residence of the taxpayer. Section 163(h)(3)(B) defines acquisition indebtedness as any indebtedness that is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving any qualified residence of the taxpayer and is secured by such residence. Section 163(h)(3)(B) also provides that acquisition indebtedness includes any indebtedness secured by such residence resulting from the refinancing of indebtedness meeting the requirements of acquisition indebtedness, or refinancing of acquisition indebtedness, but only to the extent the amount of the indebtedness resulting from such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the refinanced indebtedness. Under § 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), the aggregate amount of acquisition indebtedness for any period cannot exceed $1,000,000 (or $500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

The term “qualified residence” is defined in § 163(h)(4)(A) as the principal residence (within the meaning of § 121) of the taxpayer and one other residence of the taxpayer that is selected by the taxpayer for the taxable year and that is used by the taxpayer as a residence (within the meaning of § 280A(d)(1))."

If I read Rev Rul 2001-11 I do not walk away with the notion that a mortgage must be secured only by the home (1st or 2nd) that it acquires or improves.

What do you think?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

12 February 2009
There's that phrase again: "and is secured by such residence"

Rev. Rul. 2005-11 provides guidance for the AMT adjustment for mortgage interest where the debt was refinanced more than once.

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

12 February 2009
I am going to call Mr. Scully tomorrow and see if I can get his read on this. He was the principal author of tha revenue ruling.

EZTAX (talk|edits) said:

12 February 2009
Man this is good late night reading when I don't feel like doing more returns!

Taxalmancer (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2009
I had nothing better to do tonight than read through Notice 88-54. When reading I couldn't help notice this paragraph:


"The $300,000 debt is also incurred to construct the residence. $100,000 of the debt is treated as debt incurred to construct the residence because was used to refinance debt incurred to construct the residence; the remaining $200,000 of the debt is treated as debt incurred to construct the residence because it was incurred within 90 days after the residence was complete, and construction expenditures of at least such an amount were incurred within the period beginning with the date 24 months prior to the date the residence was complete and ending with the date the debt was incurred. The entire $300,000 debt is acquisition indebtedness because it is also secured by a qualified residence. Therefore, all of the interest on the debt is deductible as qualified residence interest.


What's interesting to me is the IRS here only required the acquisition indebtedness be secured by "a" qualified residence not secured by "such" residence.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2009
Typo? My RIA takes me to a notice about Section 149

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2009
Taxalmancer, I am right there with you. Is it "such" or is it "such" - that is the question. But I think you've read more into the "secured by a qualified residence" language of Notice 88-54 than is in there. In the context, all it means is that the residence that secures the indebtedness is a qualified residence. You're really stretching to find it to mean more. Damn good try, though, you keep looking, I'll keep drinking PBR.

Somebody in this thread said he hoped he was wrong because he liked the other answer better. That's where I am.

Smokeytax (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2009
I weigh in agreeing with the bad news - i.e. that the mortgage has to be secured by the second home in order to be fully deductible.

I told this to a client who is a really important lawyer & he responded that it's all OK because we can simply deduct everything on the forms 1098 and the IRS will never know the difference. (I didn't but he didn't seem to notice.)

Back to work.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

16 February 2009
Been down this road before and Riley has already weighed in.

http://taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:Home_Acquisition_Debt_vs_Home_Equity_Debt