Discussion:Parents Paid Mortgage & More
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 17:16, 18 December 2008 TTMM (Talk | contribs) (There was a cour) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 19:20, 18 December 2008 TTMM (Talk | contribs) (Found it. See Nd) Next diff → |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=TTMM|Date=18 December 2008|Text=There was a court case this past year with similar circumstances. I don't have the cite with me right now. But the person living in the home got the mortgage deduction.}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=TTMM|Date=18 December 2008|Text=There was a court case this past year with similar circumstances. I don't have the cite with me right now. But the person living in the home got the mortgage deduction.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=TTMM|Date=18 December 2008|Text=Found it. See Ndile G Njenge etal v comm TC Summary Opinion 2008-84 and Saffet and Ana Uslu TC Memo 1997-551. The court found that the taxpayer held the benefits and burdens of ownership.}} | ||
Revision as of 19:20, 18 December 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Parents Paid Mortgage & More
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Parents Paid Mortgage & More
| 17 December 2008 | |
| Parents are making mortgage payments on behalf of and providing other support to Son and Daughter-In-Law (DIL)due to serious medical condition of Son. Parents are legally responsible for mortgage (their name is on mortgage). Son and Daughter-In-Law are on deed. Total payments made and other support provided by Parents in 2008 will total approximately $30,000.
My thinking is as follows: 1. Either Parents or Son and DIL may take deduction for mortgage interest. Parents due to the fact that they are legally obligated to pay mortgage (second home). Son and DIL due to Reg 1.163-1(b). 2. Parents will not be liable for gift taxes due to $12,000 annual exclusion for each person. Father could give $12,000 to each to Son and DIL and Mother could do the same. 3. Parents will not be able to claim Son and DIL as dependents due to but not limited to the following facts: 1) support provided by Parents will not exceed 50% (Son and DIL will have income exceeding $50,000 and 2)Son and DIL's income exceeds limit. Please let me know if I am considering all factors. All input is welcome. | |
ReadMyLips (talk|edits) said: | 17 December 2008 |
| Is this an equity sharing arrangement? If not, was there a gift at the time the son was put on the deed?
If the parents made the mortgage payments, then they should take the deduction. It sounds like the property may actually be considered a rental if the son is living there; it doesn't sound like a shared equity if the son never put anything into the property--but maybe I'm missing some of the facts. If the parents elect to gift split, a 709 should be filed (but no tax due). | |
| 18 December 2008 | |
| Parents may not claim a deduction for home mortgage interest since the home is not a Qualified Residence “of the parents”. No indication that the children are not the legal and equitable owners of the property. My answer might change if the parents are on the deed.
Son may not claim a deduction for payments made by an obligor on the mortgage. Better way to handle this would be to have the parents gift the funds each month to the son’s bank account. Only the obligor who made the payments (in this case, the parents) may claim a deduction for interest. My answer would change if the parents were acting as agents for the children. Using a gift-splitting election, the $12,000 annual exclusion should eliminate the gift tax liability. | |
Me and the Boss (talk|edits) said: | 18 December 2008 |
| Just curious. How in the world does a mortgage company lend to the parents when they have no equitable interest in the property? Or, is this just another example of why we are in this whole credit crisis mess?
Alternatively, can you provide me with the mortgage lender's contact info? I have many clients who own their homes free and clear and I would like to take out mortgages in my name secured by their property, make a couple of payments and then skip to Costa Rica. Sounds like a good plan to me! | |
| 18 December 2008 | |
| The parents didn't get the cash. The opposite is the case -- they are co-signers on a loan for their children. The children own the house and the parents are only obligors on the note. The bank would be happy to add you as a co-signer on the loan. You wouldn't received anything for your signature. You just might have to pay up if the primary obligors didn't pay. | |
| 18 December 2008 | |
| There was a court case this past year with similar circumstances. I don't have the cite with me right now. But the person living in the home got the mortgage deduction. | |
| 18 December 2008 | |
| Found it. See Ndile G Njenge etal v comm TC Summary Opinion 2008-84 and Saffet and Ana Uslu TC Memo 1997-551. The court found that the taxpayer held the benefits and burdens of ownership. | |


