Senate OKs $15,000 tax break for homebuyers – I believe investors too eligible for this tax credit

[Effective Demand]

[quote=esmith][quote=IONEGARM]I believe what is says is that people who get the benefit can elect to use it for a rebate on 2008 taxes.

But I think the eligibility for the program is the date of passage of the bill forward for 1 year.[/quote]

Section 25E (b) (1) explicitly says that the credit shall be allowed with respect to purchases made after December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 2010.

Interestingly, current amendment makes the previous $7,500 tax credit expire “on the day of the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009.” It seems to me that anyone who buys a house between January 1, 2009, and the day the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009” is signed into law (probably mid-February), will be entitled to get BOTH the $7,500 refundable credit and the $15,000 non-refundable credit.[/quote]

The Thomas one is different than the the Senator has on his site as an announcement for what has passed. They are very different:

http://isakson.senate.gov/Amdt_106.pdf

What IO said is correct based on this information. And you aren’t eligible for both. Also the 2008 date is merely a tax accounting trick so you can get a refund sooner rather than later.

[Eugene]

Okay. You’re right, the version of amendment as approved by the Senate is different from what was originally proposed, and it only applies to purchases made after the final bill is signed by the President. That is unfortunate, but it makes sense.

[Eugene]

Okay. You’re right, the version of amendment as approved by the Senate is different from what was originally proposed, and it only applies to purchases made after the final bill is signed by the President. That is unfortunate, but it makes sense.

[Eugene]

Okay. You’re right, the version of amendment as approved by the Senate is different from what was originally proposed, and it only applies to purchases made after the final bill is signed by the President. That is unfortunate, but it makes sense.

[Eugene]

Okay. You’re right, the version of amendment as approved by the Senate is different from what was originally proposed, and it only applies to purchases made after the final bill is signed by the President. That is unfortunate, but it makes sense.

[Eugene]

Okay. You’re right, the version of amendment as approved by the Senate is different from what was originally proposed, and it only applies to purchases made after the final bill is signed by the President. That is unfortunate, but it makes sense.

[SD Realtor]

PR I am far from an expert on the intricacies of the economy. I do think however that there are many more connections then just the banks. I think one has to consider state and county investments, pension funds, and other large bodied investments. Essentially if we could contain the collapse to only banks then yes I do agree with you but I think the … disease is so deep, that it is more complex.

What you said though makes sense. Hell just print money to simply keep these investments solvent so to speak. Perhaps that would work, and as you pointed out that is what is essentially being done anyways…

The problem is way to complex for me to wrap my brain around it. However I think even smart guys like Roubini seem to take a more measured approach. Not sure though…

[SD Realtor]

PR I am far from an expert on the intricacies of the economy. I do think however that there are many more connections then just the banks. I think one has to consider state and county investments, pension funds, and other large bodied investments. Essentially if we could contain the collapse to only banks then yes I do agree with you but I think the … disease is so deep, that it is more complex.

What you said though makes sense. Hell just print money to simply keep these investments solvent so to speak. Perhaps that would work, and as you pointed out that is what is essentially being done anyways…

The problem is way to complex for me to wrap my brain around it. However I think even smart guys like Roubini seem to take a more measured approach. Not sure though…

[SD Realtor]

PR I am far from an expert on the intricacies of the economy. I do think however that there are many more connections then just the banks. I think one has to consider state and county investments, pension funds, and other large bodied investments. Essentially if we could contain the collapse to only banks then yes I do agree with you but I think the … disease is so deep, that it is more complex.

What you said though makes sense. Hell just print money to simply keep these investments solvent so to speak. Perhaps that would work, and as you pointed out that is what is essentially being done anyways…

The problem is way to complex for me to wrap my brain around it. However I think even smart guys like Roubini seem to take a more measured approach. Not sure though…

[SD Realtor]

PR I am far from an expert on the intricacies of the economy. I do think however that there are many more connections then just the banks. I think one has to consider state and county investments, pension funds, and other large bodied investments. Essentially if we could contain the collapse to only banks then yes I do agree with you but I think the … disease is so deep, that it is more complex.

What you said though makes sense. Hell just print money to simply keep these investments solvent so to speak. Perhaps that would work, and as you pointed out that is what is essentially being done anyways…

The problem is way to complex for me to wrap my brain around it. However I think even smart guys like Roubini seem to take a more measured approach. Not sure though…

[SD Realtor]

PR I am far from an expert on the intricacies of the economy. I do think however that there are many more connections then just the banks. I think one has to consider state and county investments, pension funds, and other large bodied investments. Essentially if we could contain the collapse to only banks then yes I do agree with you but I think the … disease is so deep, that it is more complex.

What you said though makes sense. Hell just print money to simply keep these investments solvent so to speak. Perhaps that would work, and as you pointed out that is what is essentially being done anyways…

The problem is way to complex for me to wrap my brain around it. However I think even smart guys like Roubini seem to take a more measured approach. Not sure though…

[Anonymous]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=esmith][quote=SDEngineer][quote=temeculaguy]What is the income ceiling? The current $7,500 credit phases out at 75k for singles and 150k for couples. If it follows the same formula it will help most of the country but so cal will get the shaft again.[/quote]

Currently, the phase-outs remain the same. To the best of my knowledge, there are no bills proposing to lift those limits as well, so if I were a betting man, I’d bet they would remain as currently written.[/quote]

Why do you think that the phase-outs remain the same? There’s nothing about income ceiling in the text of the amendment.[/quote]

Because the bills all currently modify the existing program. I’ve read the text of the bills as presented, and none present a new program – they just modify the previously existing program. None of the bills that I’ve read (Inouye’s, Isakson’s, and Thune’s) do anything to modify the phase-out provisions in the existing program – they just change the dates, the repayment provision, and in Isakson’s and Thune’s, the amount and the scope (to allow all principal residence purchasers).
[/quote]

I believe you are mistaken about the income phase-outs remaining in the bill. Every media report I have read says there are no income limits; you are the only person I have seen who says so. See the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/06/home-buyer-tax-credits-price-tag-35-billion/

Senator Isakson’s amendment that passed yesterday amended the Inouye amendment (No. 98) to H.R. 1. When you compare the text of section 3011 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/HERA/HousingandEconomicRecoveryActof2008-asenacted.pdf , you will see that the Isakson amendment entirely removes the income limit (and adopts a number of new limitations): http://isakson.senate.gov/Amdt_106.pdf . The income limitation was in subsection (b)(2) (“Limitation Based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income”) and is now gone completely. Contrary to your statement, the Isakson amendment DOES appear to “present a new program,” not merely modify the prior one. The bill titles actually make this clear: Inouye’s is entitled “Extension of First-Time Homebuyer Credit,” whereas Isakson’s amendment strikes that title and replaces it with “Credit for Certain Home Purchases.” Inouye planned merely to extend the first-time buyer credit; Isakson made it apply to everyone. As I interpret the bill text, Isakson’s amendment does not merely modify the housing credit portion of the Inouye bill, but rather, replaces it entirely. The Isakson amendment is self-contained and every limitation on the $15,000 tax credit is found therein. I believe the income limit is gone, at least for the time being.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=esmith][quote=SDEngineer][quote=temeculaguy]What is the income ceiling? The current $7,500 credit phases out at 75k for singles and 150k for couples. If it follows the same formula it will help most of the country but so cal will get the shaft again.[/quote]

Currently, the phase-outs remain the same. To the best of my knowledge, there are no bills proposing to lift those limits as well, so if I were a betting man, I’d bet they would remain as currently written.[/quote]

Why do you think that the phase-outs remain the same? There’s nothing about income ceiling in the text of the amendment.[/quote]

Because the bills all currently modify the existing program. I’ve read the text of the bills as presented, and none present a new program – they just modify the previously existing program. None of the bills that I’ve read (Inouye’s, Isakson’s, and Thune’s) do anything to modify the phase-out provisions in the existing program – they just change the dates, the repayment provision, and in Isakson’s and Thune’s, the amount and the scope (to allow all principal residence purchasers).
[/quote]

I believe you are mistaken about the income phase-outs remaining in the bill. Every media report I have read says there are no income limits; you are the only person I have seen who says so. See the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/06/home-buyer-tax-credits-price-tag-35-billion/

Senator Isakson’s amendment that passed yesterday amended the Inouye amendment (No. 98) to H.R. 1. When you compare the text of section 3011 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/HERA/HousingandEconomicRecoveryActof2008-asenacted.pdf , you will see that the Isakson amendment entirely removes the income limit (and adopts a number of new limitations): http://isakson.senate.gov/Amdt_106.pdf . The income limitation was in subsection (b)(2) (“Limitation Based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income”) and is now gone completely. Contrary to your statement, the Isakson amendment DOES appear to “present a new program,” not merely modify the prior one. The bill titles actually make this clear: Inouye’s is entitled “Extension of First-Time Homebuyer Credit,” whereas Isakson’s amendment strikes that title and replaces it with “Credit for Certain Home Purchases.” Inouye planned merely to extend the first-time buyer credit; Isakson made it apply to everyone. As I interpret the bill text, Isakson’s amendment does not merely modify the housing credit portion of the Inouye bill, but rather, replaces it entirely. The Isakson amendment is self-contained and every limitation on the $15,000 tax credit is found therein. I believe the income limit is gone, at least for the time being.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=esmith][quote=SDEngineer][quote=temeculaguy]What is the income ceiling? The current $7,500 credit phases out at 75k for singles and 150k for couples. If it follows the same formula it will help most of the country but so cal will get the shaft again.[/quote]

Currently, the phase-outs remain the same. To the best of my knowledge, there are no bills proposing to lift those limits as well, so if I were a betting man, I’d bet they would remain as currently written.[/quote]

Why do you think that the phase-outs remain the same? There’s nothing about income ceiling in the text of the amendment.[/quote]

Because the bills all currently modify the existing program. I’ve read the text of the bills as presented, and none present a new program – they just modify the previously existing program. None of the bills that I’ve read (Inouye’s, Isakson’s, and Thune’s) do anything to modify the phase-out provisions in the existing program – they just change the dates, the repayment provision, and in Isakson’s and Thune’s, the amount and the scope (to allow all principal residence purchasers).
[/quote]

I believe you are mistaken about the income phase-outs remaining in the bill. Every media report I have read says there are no income limits; you are the only person I have seen who says so. See the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/06/home-buyer-tax-credits-price-tag-35-billion/

Senator Isakson’s amendment that passed yesterday amended the Inouye amendment (No. 98) to H.R. 1. When you compare the text of section 3011 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/HERA/HousingandEconomicRecoveryActof2008-asenacted.pdf , you will see that the Isakson amendment entirely removes the income limit (and adopts a number of new limitations): http://isakson.senate.gov/Amdt_106.pdf . The income limitation was in subsection (b)(2) (“Limitation Based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income”) and is now gone completely. Contrary to your statement, the Isakson amendment DOES appear to “present a new program,” not merely modify the prior one. The bill titles actually make this clear: Inouye’s is entitled “Extension of First-Time Homebuyer Credit,” whereas Isakson’s amendment strikes that title and replaces it with “Credit for Certain Home Purchases.” Inouye planned merely to extend the first-time buyer credit; Isakson made it apply to everyone. As I interpret the bill text, Isakson’s amendment does not merely modify the housing credit portion of the Inouye bill, but rather, replaces it entirely. The Isakson amendment is self-contained and every limitation on the $15,000 tax credit is found therein. I believe the income limit is gone, at least for the time being.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=esmith][quote=SDEngineer][quote=temeculaguy]What is the income ceiling? The current $7,500 credit phases out at 75k for singles and 150k for couples. If it follows the same formula it will help most of the country but so cal will get the shaft again.[/quote]

Currently, the phase-outs remain the same. To the best of my knowledge, there are no bills proposing to lift those limits as well, so if I were a betting man, I’d bet they would remain as currently written.[/quote]

Why do you think that the phase-outs remain the same? There’s nothing about income ceiling in the text of the amendment.[/quote]

Because the bills all currently modify the existing program. I’ve read the text of the bills as presented, and none present a new program – they just modify the previously existing program. None of the bills that I’ve read (Inouye’s, Isakson’s, and Thune’s) do anything to modify the phase-out provisions in the existing program – they just change the dates, the repayment provision, and in Isakson’s and Thune’s, the amount and the scope (to allow all principal residence purchasers).
[/quote]

I believe you are mistaken about the income phase-outs remaining in the bill. Every media report I have read says there are no income limits; you are the only person I have seen who says so. See the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/02/06/home-buyer-tax-credits-price-tag-35-billion/

Senator Isakson’s amendment that passed yesterday amended the Inouye amendment (No. 98) to H.R. 1. When you compare the text of section 3011 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, available at http://www.mortgagebankers.org/files/ResourceCenter/HERA/HousingandEconomicRecoveryActof2008-asenacted.pdf , you will see that the Isakson amendment entirely removes the income limit (and adopts a number of new limitations): http://isakson.senate.gov/Amdt_106.pdf . The income limitation was in subsection (b)(2) (“Limitation Based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income”) and is now gone completely. Contrary to your statement, the Isakson amendment DOES appear to “present a new program,” not merely modify the prior one. The bill titles actually make this clear: Inouye’s is entitled “Extension of First-Time Homebuyer Credit,” whereas Isakson’s amendment strikes that title and replaces it with “Credit for Certain Home Purchases.” Inouye planned merely to extend the first-time buyer credit; Isakson made it apply to everyone. As I interpret the bill text, Isakson’s amendment does not merely modify the housing credit portion of the Inouye bill, but rather, replaces it entirely. The Isakson amendment is self-contained and every limitation on the $15,000 tax credit is found therein. I believe the income limit is gone, at least for the time being.

[Author]

Posts