[SK in CV]

The $8K you each got was an advance payment on the credit, subject to you both fulfilling all the requirements. One of them will have to be paid back. For a number of reasons. Previous comment addresses one of them, the home has to be owner occupied, so at least one of the homes doesn’t qualify. Also, on a joint return, both spouses have to qualify, and the 2nd purchase wouldn’t qualify for the new homeowner credit since your wife previously owned a home, even if just for a few months.

Since you both amended the previous years returns, the proper way to fix it would be to recapture the 2nd credit (assuming the 1st home is the one you’re now occupying) on your ’09 return. If you’re occupying the home purchased 2nd, it might get a little dicey. Since it qualified when you purchased it, I suspect the credit will stand and the 1st credit should be recaptured. Where it gets dicey is that the law says that both spouses have to qualify, since she previously owned a home, neither of you qualify. But since you weren’t married at the time of either purchase, you’re probably OK.

Or, you could ignore it on your ’09 return and see if they catch it. 25 years ago, that might have been a pretty good bet. The IRS had few mechanisms to follow that kind of stuff. But over the years, they’ve got much better at it. Penalties and interest would apply. Pretty high risk.

[SK in CV]

The $8K you each got was an advance payment on the credit, subject to you both fulfilling all the requirements. One of them will have to be paid back. For a number of reasons. Previous comment addresses one of them, the home has to be owner occupied, so at least one of the homes doesn’t qualify. Also, on a joint return, both spouses have to qualify, and the 2nd purchase wouldn’t qualify for the new homeowner credit since your wife previously owned a home, even if just for a few months.

Since you both amended the previous years returns, the proper way to fix it would be to recapture the 2nd credit (assuming the 1st home is the one you’re now occupying) on your ’09 return. If you’re occupying the home purchased 2nd, it might get a little dicey. Since it qualified when you purchased it, I suspect the credit will stand and the 1st credit should be recaptured. Where it gets dicey is that the law says that both spouses have to qualify, since she previously owned a home, neither of you qualify. But since you weren’t married at the time of either purchase, you’re probably OK.

Or, you could ignore it on your ’09 return and see if they catch it. 25 years ago, that might have been a pretty good bet. The IRS had few mechanisms to follow that kind of stuff. But over the years, they’ve got much better at it. Penalties and interest would apply. Pretty high risk.

[SK in CV]

The $8K you each got was an advance payment on the credit, subject to you both fulfilling all the requirements. One of them will have to be paid back. For a number of reasons. Previous comment addresses one of them, the home has to be owner occupied, so at least one of the homes doesn’t qualify. Also, on a joint return, both spouses have to qualify, and the 2nd purchase wouldn’t qualify for the new homeowner credit since your wife previously owned a home, even if just for a few months.

Since you both amended the previous years returns, the proper way to fix it would be to recapture the 2nd credit (assuming the 1st home is the one you’re now occupying) on your ’09 return. If you’re occupying the home purchased 2nd, it might get a little dicey. Since it qualified when you purchased it, I suspect the credit will stand and the 1st credit should be recaptured. Where it gets dicey is that the law says that both spouses have to qualify, since she previously owned a home, neither of you qualify. But since you weren’t married at the time of either purchase, you’re probably OK.

Or, you could ignore it on your ’09 return and see if they catch it. 25 years ago, that might have been a pretty good bet. The IRS had few mechanisms to follow that kind of stuff. But over the years, they’ve got much better at it. Penalties and interest would apply. Pretty high risk.

[SK in CV]

The $8K you each got was an advance payment on the credit, subject to you both fulfilling all the requirements. One of them will have to be paid back. For a number of reasons. Previous comment addresses one of them, the home has to be owner occupied, so at least one of the homes doesn’t qualify. Also, on a joint return, both spouses have to qualify, and the 2nd purchase wouldn’t qualify for the new homeowner credit since your wife previously owned a home, even if just for a few months.

Since you both amended the previous years returns, the proper way to fix it would be to recapture the 2nd credit (assuming the 1st home is the one you’re now occupying) on your ’09 return. If you’re occupying the home purchased 2nd, it might get a little dicey. Since it qualified when you purchased it, I suspect the credit will stand and the 1st credit should be recaptured. Where it gets dicey is that the law says that both spouses have to qualify, since she previously owned a home, neither of you qualify. But since you weren’t married at the time of either purchase, you’re probably OK.

Or, you could ignore it on your ’09 return and see if they catch it. 25 years ago, that might have been a pretty good bet. The IRS had few mechanisms to follow that kind of stuff. But over the years, they’ve got much better at it. Penalties and interest would apply. Pretty high risk.

[SK in CV]

The mistake that I think you make Rich, is to attribute all losses to reckless behavior. Over the last 3 years, a lot of industries have suffered, some purely as a result of market conditions, unrelated to reckless behavior. (print media, advertising, auto industry) Many of them have sustained huge losses. It benefits both the reckless and the non-reckless. (All the allied auto industry suppliers, for instance. Some of whom were purely victims of GM’s bad management.)

On the other hand, this was a handout. Had it not been for the builders, (and probably the banks and lenders for that matter) this clause never would have gotten into the law. It was certainly not a stimulus. The builders who received the benefits are still not building or hiring. Nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

[SK in CV]

The mistake that I think you make Rich, is to attribute all losses to reckless behavior. Over the last 3 years, a lot of industries have suffered, some purely as a result of market conditions, unrelated to reckless behavior. (print media, advertising, auto industry) Many of them have sustained huge losses. It benefits both the reckless and the non-reckless. (All the allied auto industry suppliers, for instance. Some of whom were purely victims of GM’s bad management.)

On the other hand, this was a handout. Had it not been for the builders, (and probably the banks and lenders for that matter) this clause never would have gotten into the law. It was certainly not a stimulus. The builders who received the benefits are still not building or hiring. Nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

[SK in CV]

The mistake that I think you make Rich, is to attribute all losses to reckless behavior. Over the last 3 years, a lot of industries have suffered, some purely as a result of market conditions, unrelated to reckless behavior. (print media, advertising, auto industry) Many of them have sustained huge losses. It benefits both the reckless and the non-reckless. (All the allied auto industry suppliers, for instance. Some of whom were purely victims of GM’s bad management.)

On the other hand, this was a handout. Had it not been for the builders, (and probably the banks and lenders for that matter) this clause never would have gotten into the law. It was certainly not a stimulus. The builders who received the benefits are still not building or hiring. Nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

[SK in CV]

The mistake that I think you make Rich, is to attribute all losses to reckless behavior. Over the last 3 years, a lot of industries have suffered, some purely as a result of market conditions, unrelated to reckless behavior. (print media, advertising, auto industry) Many of them have sustained huge losses. It benefits both the reckless and the non-reckless. (All the allied auto industry suppliers, for instance. Some of whom were purely victims of GM’s bad management.)

On the other hand, this was a handout. Had it not been for the builders, (and probably the banks and lenders for that matter) this clause never would have gotten into the law. It was certainly not a stimulus. The builders who received the benefits are still not building or hiring. Nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

[SK in CV]

The mistake that I think you make Rich, is to attribute all losses to reckless behavior. Over the last 3 years, a lot of industries have suffered, some purely as a result of market conditions, unrelated to reckless behavior. (print media, advertising, auto industry) Many of them have sustained huge losses. It benefits both the reckless and the non-reckless. (All the allied auto industry suppliers, for instance. Some of whom were purely victims of GM’s bad management.)

On the other hand, this was a handout. Had it not been for the builders, (and probably the banks and lenders for that matter) this clause never would have gotten into the law. It was certainly not a stimulus. The builders who received the benefits are still not building or hiring. Nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.[/quote]

He had it exactly right. And it does now apply to all taxpayers. One of the earlier stimulus bills (I can’t remember which one it was) changed these rules only for small business (i think it was average gross reciepts under $15 million) allowing for a 5 year carryback instead of 2. The bill in the late fall (November I think?), which also extended and changed the new homeowner credit, also extended those modified carryback rules to all other taxpayers that were previously eligible to carryback losses. There may have also been a change in the applicable years. The new law only covers losses for 2 years ending in 2008 and 2009.

Homebuilders were among its biggest beneficiaries, but far from it’s only ones.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.[/quote]

He had it exactly right. And it does now apply to all taxpayers. One of the earlier stimulus bills (I can’t remember which one it was) changed these rules only for small business (i think it was average gross reciepts under $15 million) allowing for a 5 year carryback instead of 2. The bill in the late fall (November I think?), which also extended and changed the new homeowner credit, also extended those modified carryback rules to all other taxpayers that were previously eligible to carryback losses. There may have also been a change in the applicable years. The new law only covers losses for 2 years ending in 2008 and 2009.

Homebuilders were among its biggest beneficiaries, but far from it’s only ones.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.[/quote]

He had it exactly right. And it does now apply to all taxpayers. One of the earlier stimulus bills (I can’t remember which one it was) changed these rules only for small business (i think it was average gross reciepts under $15 million) allowing for a 5 year carryback instead of 2. The bill in the late fall (November I think?), which also extended and changed the new homeowner credit, also extended those modified carryback rules to all other taxpayers that were previously eligible to carryback losses. There may have also been a change in the applicable years. The new law only covers losses for 2 years ending in 2008 and 2009.

Homebuilders were among its biggest beneficiaries, but far from it’s only ones.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.[/quote]

He had it exactly right. And it does now apply to all taxpayers. One of the earlier stimulus bills (I can’t remember which one it was) changed these rules only for small business (i think it was average gross reciepts under $15 million) allowing for a 5 year carryback instead of 2. The bill in the late fall (November I think?), which also extended and changed the new homeowner credit, also extended those modified carryback rules to all other taxpayers that were previously eligible to carryback losses. There may have also been a change in the applicable years. The new law only covers losses for 2 years ending in 2008 and 2009.

Homebuilders were among its biggest beneficiaries, but far from it’s only ones.

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]

As I understand it, you’ve got it approximately right.

So, there are two ways to look at this. One is that Toll is getting a freebie that they should never have gotten (Rich’s view – which is legitimate). The second way to look at it is that there’s nothing wrong with Toll’s receiving this benefit SO LONG AS EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND INDIVIDUAL GETS THE SAME BENEFIT. My problem with this crap is not so much that Toll gets this benefit, but rather that everyone else doesn’t get the same benefit. Mine is a level-playing-field argument.[/quote]

He had it exactly right. And it does now apply to all taxpayers. One of the earlier stimulus bills (I can’t remember which one it was) changed these rules only for small business (i think it was average gross reciepts under $15 million) allowing for a 5 year carryback instead of 2. The bill in the late fall (November I think?), which also extended and changed the new homeowner credit, also extended those modified carryback rules to all other taxpayers that were previously eligible to carryback losses. There may have also been a change in the applicable years. The new law only covers losses for 2 years ending in 2008 and 2009.

Homebuilders were among its biggest beneficiaries, but far from it’s only ones.

[SK in CV]

I’m a bit more than hesitant to consider claims that the problem couldn’t be duplicated as evidence of a hoax. I had a Kia Sodona with a less dangerous, though significant problem that also couldn’t be duplicated. Five or six times it was into the shop to fix an intermittently functioning speedometer, and since it couldn’t be duplicated Kia took the position that there was no problem with the car. Since it was my wife that drove the car and I never witnessed it, at first I wasn’t convinced they were wrong. She hated the car from the day she drove it home. But after driving 30 to 35 thousand miles a year for 5 or 6 years, her mileage was only at 24,000 after 15 months, with no change in her driving habits. Seems the odometer didn’t work when the speedometer went dead. Sufficient to convince me it was real. Eventually, it also convinced Kia Motors. They bought the car back from me at full original purchase price.

The rest of the evidence that it was a hoax is no more than circumstanial, or even contradicted by the CHP.

It may have been a hoax. But the evidence seems weak at best.

[Author]

Posts