Discussion:Sec 267 Loss - Sale to party related to 1/2 of joint owners
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)
| Revision as of 13:59, 27 October 2009 Jmwcpa (Talk | contribs) (My reading of 26) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 17:22, 27 October 2009 SCCPA (Talk | contribs) (Perhaps I'm read) Next diff → |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Jmwcpa|Date=27 October 2009|Text=My reading of 267(c)(4) says that a STEP daughter (non blood relative) would NOT be a related party. Also, 267 doesn't seem to address the question of joint ownership. Any other thoughts?}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Jmwcpa|Date=27 October 2009|Text=My reading of 267(c)(4) says that a STEP daughter (non blood relative) would NOT be a related party. Also, 267 doesn't seem to address the question of joint ownership. Any other thoughts?}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=SCCPA|Date=27 October 2009|Text=Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but as I read it (c)(2) provides that an individual owns his/her spouse's interest, and the daughter is a child of one of the spouses.}} | ||
Revision as of 17:22, 27 October 2009
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Sec 267 Loss - Sale to party related to 1/2 of joint owners
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Sec 267 Loss - Sale to party related to 1/2 of joint owners
| 26 October 2009 | |
| If a husband and wife own property jointly and sell it to the daughter of ONE of them, do the disallowance rules apply to the entire loss? Does it matter if the property is owned as tenants in common as opposed to joint tenancy? | |
| 27 October 2009 | |
| The disallowance rules apply and it doesn't matter if it is tenants in common or joint tenancy. See Sections 267(c)(2) and (c)(4) IRC. | |
| 27 October 2009 | |
| My reading of 267(c)(4) says that a STEP daughter (non blood relative) would NOT be a related party. Also, 267 doesn't seem to address the question of joint ownership. Any other thoughts? | |
| 27 October 2009 | |
| Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but as I read it (c)(2) provides that an individual owns his/her spouse's interest, and the daughter is a child of one of the spouses. | |
