Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV]I think you misunderstood BG. I don’t know if a 62 year old house is old. I think 100 year old house is, particularly in SD. 50 years old probably not. I was just asking for opinion. How old is an old house in SD? I don’t know the answer.[/quote]
I consider “old houses” in SD to be older than about 1927 (Arts and Crafts period). The Mills Act requires homes to be 75 years old and their owner to demonstrate through any means that their properties have “historical significance” for its area to qualify for tax abatement (severe reduction).
But there are a LOT of Piggs here (Gen Y?) whom I think would say a 1990’s-built home is “old.” :=D
ParticipantI forgot to add that there is a 99% chance of 2.5″ red oak hardwood under that “shag” carpet 🙂
Unfortunately, this particular micro-area is not scheduled to be “undergrounded” until 2040. (Even if I was in this “buyer category,” I likely would not live long enough to enjoy an unmarred 360 degree view) :=0
Click on District 2 and see area 2H on pg 8 (wait to load):
http://www.sandiego.gov/undergrounding/schedule/masterplan.shtml
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]gzz, this house is going on 62 years old.[/quote]
***
How old is old?[/quote]
SK, I simply stated the age to the OP because the OP reads “Perfectly preserved early ’70’s high end interior.” That description is in error.
The only thing that is “’70’s era” on that property are the carpet, furnishings (NOT appurtenant) and cedar shake roof on the house and rear sundeck (over the now-paved alley and facing the ocean). Based upon its facade with the raised front porch, wrought iron railing, the type of siding used and even its side view on Google earth and street view, this house is undoubtedly its stated age of 62 years old. If appears to have possibly had a ~300 sf room addition added to the back which I am assuming was done in the ’70’s (along with the detached view deck). That is obviously when the house was re-roofed as well.
This type of house is “extremely common” in SD County but was is not “extremely common” about this listing is that it still has the preserved American Standard pastel bathroom fixtures and matching Daltile of the era, its original kitchen well as the original crank-out windows, what appears to be a “coppertone” Gaffers and Stattler wall heater (top of the line at the time) and it is situated north of Hill Street atop a rare crest which offers both city and whitewater views.
I have had many ex-coworkers who grew up in and/or bought in this micro area and can safely say that most of these alleys were paved in 1985-1986 by City contractors at a cost of $3K to $7K per homeowner (depending upon width of alley and width of each lot).
It is what it is. If I was in this buyer category, I would be personally appreciative of its many original appointments and location. One cannot “recreate” these things if they are not already there.
Yes, my own house is older than this one (with a new white paper issued 1993) and I am intimately familiar with the building mat’ls used and original features of a typical mid-century ranch style home, having grown up in one as well.
Again, thanks for sharing this very interesting and well-built listing, gzz!
Participantgzz, this house is going on 62 years old.
ParticipantIt’s such a cool house that the crank-out (likely leaky) windows don’t even bother me.
And the shake roof appears to have been preserved at some point but not sure a buyer today could get an insurance binder on it. They’ll probably be given a maximum of six months after COE to replace it.
ParticipantL@rd, I so-o-o-o wish I could afford to “retire” in this area . . .
Participant[quote=flyer]Yep, not far from some of my relative’s homes in Sunset Cliffs. This one looks like most of it is original. There are also some fantastic rebuilds in the area–especially the further down you go on Sunset Cliffs Blvd., and up on the the surrounding hills. On the Point Loma side, take a look at Armada Terrace–fantastic city views.
Of late, at least in SC, many of the houses have been purchased by attorneys, insurance execs and others who work downtown, along with well-heeled retirees who wish to be near the yacht clubs–as a sampling of buyer demographics in the area.[/quote]
Yes, Armada Terrace is one of my fav streets also, as is Savoy Circle!
I LOVE this property, gzz!! It is actually a mid-century home (with carpet from the ’70’s). Very typical for this area.
My FAV features are the pink tile bathroom and blue tile kitchen with an “vintage” Insinkerator faucet. It even has a hint of blue in the dining room built-in!
And an awesome back yard as well. Great bones!
Thanks so much for sharing 🙂
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl](emphasis added)
The Chief Counsel seems to be stating here that (MR) assessments may be deductible IF
… they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction, and if the assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges)…
MR isn’t levied “on all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.” It’s only levied on the properties within CFD’s in which the bonds have not yet been retired.
In addition, MR assessments in CA ARE for local benefits, not “maintenance” because the local jurisdictions (city/county) maintain the public lands within the CFD’s.
However, some of the MR payments service interest charges.
Without further direction from the IRS/FTB, this issue seems like it could be a quagmire for affected taxpayers.[/quote]
The FTB concluded:
“We have removed material from our website that limits the deductibility of real property taxes to taxes imposed on an ad valorem basis.”
Essentially they conceded that based on the IRS letter, MR is deductible.[/quote]
Is that just for the 2012 tax year, until further notice … or forever?
Participant[quote=flu]Which tax preparer are you referring to? The one that charged me $250/hr or the other one that charged me $150 to answer an email? In both cases, yes I spoke to both of them about recently, and in the brief 1 question 6 word sentence, I did manage to squeeze in the MR question without being unduly billed… 🙂
(Clearly, I’m in the wrong business)…[/quote]
So what did these high-paid “experts” tell you??
Participant[quote=flu]BG, you really don’t like to be wrong do you?
Come on. You’re trying argue you are right despite the facts to the contrary and trying to pick a minute wording in every document that clearly indicates that Mello R is deductible and will be deductible until the forseeable future. You’re not an accountant (neither and I) but I’ve definitely have checked with many accountants who have also confirmed this…
“might” is a loosey goosey word. Hell, I *might* win the Powerball lottery….
I think you missed this statement from the IRS.. Let me bold and emphasize for you too…
However, § 1.164-4(b)(1) permits a deduction for assessments to provide local
benefits to the extent that the taxpayer can show they were imposed to repair, maintain,
or meet interest charges for such benefits.
Seriously, it’s ok to be wrong sometimes…We’re all wrong sometimes…[/quote]
I read your bolded statement for IRC § 1.164-4(b)(1).
How are you going to show the FTB that your MR levy was used to “repair, maintain, or meet interest charges” (to “repair” and “maintain” the land within your CFD)?
Participant[quote=flu]BG, you really don’t like to be wrong do you?
Come on. You’re trying argue you are right despite the facts to the contrary and trying to pick a minute wording in every document that clearly indicates that Mello R is deductible and will be deductible until the forseeable future. You’re not an accountant (neither and I) but I’ve definitely have checked with many accountants who have also confirmed this…
“might” is a loosey goosey word. Hell, I *might* win the Powerball lottery….
I think you missed this statement from the IRS.. Let me bold and emphasize for you too…
However, § 1.164-4(b)(1) permits a deduction for assessments to provide local
benefits to the extent that the taxpayer can show they were imposed to repair, maintain,
or meet interest charges for such benefits.
Seriously, it’s ok to be wrong sometimes…We’re all wrong sometimes…[/quote]
I don’t care one way or the other, flu as I won’t be affected. I’m trying to interpret the source document you provided.
What does your tax preparer tell you in this regard? That is … if you have spoken to him/her in 2013 …
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]Note the date of that article is March 17, 2012. It implies that beginning in 2012 that MR will not be deductible. But it links to the same FTB article that was discussed here a year ago, that explains essentially that the current IRS instructions make MR deductible, and that enforcement would not change for 2012. The conclusion reached in the article is wrong.[/quote]
SK, by your post, I take you mean enforcement for the (2011) returns due 4/17/12, NOT the 2012 tax year returns (due 4/15/13)?
I am unclear as to which “article” it is that you believe came to the wrong conclusion.
Was it’s link posted on this thread?
…. maybe I better go clean my magnifying glass :=0[/quote]
I was referring to the trulia article in the original post which comes to the wrong conclusion. It says one thing, then links to an FTB article that says another.
If I remember correctly the FTB had a grand plan to cross check tax deductions with tax collectors records that was partially supposed to be in effect for 2011 and become fully functional in 2012. (I could be wrong on the years.) (which has been discussed here over the last few hours.)
But in the trulia article, it refers to the tax deduction for the 2012 tax year.[/quote]
So, in your opinion, do you believe MR is allowed to be deducted for tax year 2012 … or not?
And, do you believe my interpretation of the Chief Counsel’s letter is correct?
Perhaps the MR “interest” portion (as I discussed directly above) is immaterial because that interest is tied to the infrastructure money used to build the goodies inside the CFDs . . . I don’t know.
Participant[quote=flu] . . .
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/12-0018.pdfNumber: 2012-0018
Release Date: 3/30/2012
GENIN-152082-11
UIL: 164.00-00———————-
——————-
—————————————————–
——————————–
——————
—————————————
Dear ———–:
I am responding to your letter to the Chief Counsel dated December 8, 2011, in which
you asked for clarification of the Internal Revenue Service’s views on whether real
property taxes must be assessed on an ad valorem basis to be deductible for federal
income tax purposes.
You note that the 2011 instructions for the Form 1040 Schedule A, Itemized Deductions,
state that real property taxes are deductible “only if the taxes are based on the
assessed value of the property.” On the other hand, a 2003 Chief Counsel
memorandum dated November 24, 2003, regarding the deductibility of California MelloRoos and other assessments, concludes that those assessments may, depending on
the facts and circumstances, be deductible as real property taxes even though they are
not imposed on an ad valorem basis.
Section 164(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a deduction for real property
taxes, but does not define what constitutes a real property tax. Personal property taxes
also may be deductible under § 164(a), but § 164(b)(1) requires a personal property tax
be an ad valorem tax to be deductible. The Code does not explicitly require the same
for real property taxes. Section 1.164-4(a) of the Income Tax Regulations explains that
to be deductible, a real property tax must be levied for the general public welfare at a
like rate against all real property in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction. In general, an GENIN-152082-11 2
amount that is assessed only on specific property benefitted by a local benefit (such as
for streets, sidewalks, and like improvements) cannot be deducted as a real property
tax. However, § 1.164-4(b)(1) permits a deduction for assessments to provide local
benefits to the extent that the taxpayer can show they were imposed to repair, maintain,
or meet interest charges for such benefits.
Revenue Ruling 80-121, 1980-1 C.B. 43, notes that a characteristic common to many
real property taxes is that the tax is measured by the value of the real property.
However, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that a real property tax be an
ad valorem tax to be deductible for federal income tax purposes. Assessments on real
property owners, based other than on the assessed value of the property, may be
deductible if they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at
a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction, and if the
assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges).
We will recommend appropriate revisions to our forms and publications on this subject.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me or —
—————————-at ———————.
Sincerely,
Christopher F. Kane
Chief, Branch 3
Associate Chief Counsel
(Income Tax & Accounting)
[/quote](emphasis added)The Chief Counsel seems to be stating here that (MR) assessments may be deductible IF
… they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction, and if the assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges)…
MR isn’t levied “on all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.” It’s only levied on the properties within CFD’s in which the bonds have not yet been retired.
In addition, MR assessments in CA ARE for local benefits, not “maintenance” because the local jurisdictions (city/county) maintain the public lands within the CFD’s.
However, some of the MR payments service interest charges.
Without further direction from the IRS/FTB, this issue seems like it could be a quagmire for affected taxpayers.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Note the date of that article is March 17, 2012. It implies that beginning in 2012 that MR will not be deductible. But it links to the same FTB article that was discussed here a year ago, that explains essentially that the current IRS instructions make MR deductible, and that enforcement would not change for 2012. The conclusion reached in the article is wrong.[/quote]
SK, by your post, I take you mean enforcement for the (2011) returns due 4/17/12, NOT the 2012 tax year returns (due 4/15/13)?
I am unclear as to which “article” it is that you believe came to the wrong conclusion.
Was it’s link posted on this thread?
…. maybe I better go clean my magnifying glass :=0
-
AuthorPosts
