[ugsfugs]

The MIP can be removed on 15+ year loans after a full five years. However, it is not based on a new appraisal amount. The HUD website says in several places a new appraisal will not be considered. The 78% calculation is based on the lower of the purchase price or appraised value at the time of purchase. So you actually have to pay down the principal to 78%. The calculation is not based on whether the market goes up or down.

Also, I have seen references to refundable MIP on the HUD website. However, I have not looked into/researched what that means. My gut thought (could be off) was that if you can remove the MIP after 5 years you HUD may owe you some of the 1.75% they added to the loan in the first place. Perhaps this is true if you refi too. Will let you know if I gain anymore insight there.

[ugsfugs]

The MIP can be removed on 15+ year loans after a full five years. However, it is not based on a new appraisal amount. The HUD website says in several places a new appraisal will not be considered. The 78% calculation is based on the lower of the purchase price or appraised value at the time of purchase. So you actually have to pay down the principal to 78%. The calculation is not based on whether the market goes up or down.

Also, I have seen references to refundable MIP on the HUD website. However, I have not looked into/researched what that means. My gut thought (could be off) was that if you can remove the MIP after 5 years you HUD may owe you some of the 1.75% they added to the loan in the first place. Perhaps this is true if you refi too. Will let you know if I gain anymore insight there.

[ugsfugs]

The MIP can be removed on 15+ year loans after a full five years. However, it is not based on a new appraisal amount. The HUD website says in several places a new appraisal will not be considered. The 78% calculation is based on the lower of the purchase price or appraised value at the time of purchase. So you actually have to pay down the principal to 78%. The calculation is not based on whether the market goes up or down.

Also, I have seen references to refundable MIP on the HUD website. However, I have not looked into/researched what that means. My gut thought (could be off) was that if you can remove the MIP after 5 years you HUD may owe you some of the 1.75% they added to the loan in the first place. Perhaps this is true if you refi too. Will let you know if I gain anymore insight there.

[ugsfugs]

The MIP can be removed on 15+ year loans after a full five years. However, it is not based on a new appraisal amount. The HUD website says in several places a new appraisal will not be considered. The 78% calculation is based on the lower of the purchase price or appraised value at the time of purchase. So you actually have to pay down the principal to 78%. The calculation is not based on whether the market goes up or down.

Also, I have seen references to refundable MIP on the HUD website. However, I have not looked into/researched what that means. My gut thought (could be off) was that if you can remove the MIP after 5 years you HUD may owe you some of the 1.75% they added to the loan in the first place. Perhaps this is true if you refi too. Will let you know if I gain anymore insight there.

[ugsfugs]

The MIP can be removed on 15+ year loans after a full five years. However, it is not based on a new appraisal amount. The HUD website says in several places a new appraisal will not be considered. The 78% calculation is based on the lower of the purchase price or appraised value at the time of purchase. So you actually have to pay down the principal to 78%. The calculation is not based on whether the market goes up or down.

Also, I have seen references to refundable MIP on the HUD website. However, I have not looked into/researched what that means. My gut thought (could be off) was that if you can remove the MIP after 5 years you HUD may owe you some of the 1.75% they added to the loan in the first place. Perhaps this is true if you refi too. Will let you know if I gain anymore insight there.

[ugsfugs]

I know a little about this. In CA if you hold as the property as CP, when one spouse dies the basis on the ENTIRE property will be stepped up to fair market value. Meaning you will likely pay much less capital gains tax when you sell it. If the property is not held as CP only the basis of the spouse who dies will be bumped up to FMV. Typically, the basis is what you paid for the property, cost basis. Thus, if the value goes up you pay the difference between your “basis” and what you sell for. However, at death the basis of the property owner is stepped up to FMV.

If you hold as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants in common, you should confirm) and one of you dies, the property AUTOMATICALLY transfers to the other person upon death. As such, if you got divorced but both still owned the property and one of you died, the other’s heirs would get nothing.

None of this matters that much unless you plan to keep the property for a long time or something unfortunate happens.

I might talk to an attorney if you are concerned. I am not sure I have all this perfectly straight.

Also, I believe you can later put property into a trust regardless of how you take title now. Watch what Congress does with the estate tax this year.

[ugsfugs]

I know a little about this. In CA if you hold as the property as CP, when one spouse dies the basis on the ENTIRE property will be stepped up to fair market value. Meaning you will likely pay much less capital gains tax when you sell it. If the property is not held as CP only the basis of the spouse who dies will be bumped up to FMV. Typically, the basis is what you paid for the property, cost basis. Thus, if the value goes up you pay the difference between your “basis” and what you sell for. However, at death the basis of the property owner is stepped up to FMV.

If you hold as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants in common, you should confirm) and one of you dies, the property AUTOMATICALLY transfers to the other person upon death. As such, if you got divorced but both still owned the property and one of you died, the other’s heirs would get nothing.

None of this matters that much unless you plan to keep the property for a long time or something unfortunate happens.

I might talk to an attorney if you are concerned. I am not sure I have all this perfectly straight.

Also, I believe you can later put property into a trust regardless of how you take title now. Watch what Congress does with the estate tax this year.

[ugsfugs]

I know a little about this. In CA if you hold as the property as CP, when one spouse dies the basis on the ENTIRE property will be stepped up to fair market value. Meaning you will likely pay much less capital gains tax when you sell it. If the property is not held as CP only the basis of the spouse who dies will be bumped up to FMV. Typically, the basis is what you paid for the property, cost basis. Thus, if the value goes up you pay the difference between your “basis” and what you sell for. However, at death the basis of the property owner is stepped up to FMV.

If you hold as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants in common, you should confirm) and one of you dies, the property AUTOMATICALLY transfers to the other person upon death. As such, if you got divorced but both still owned the property and one of you died, the other’s heirs would get nothing.

None of this matters that much unless you plan to keep the property for a long time or something unfortunate happens.

I might talk to an attorney if you are concerned. I am not sure I have all this perfectly straight.

Also, I believe you can later put property into a trust regardless of how you take title now. Watch what Congress does with the estate tax this year.

[ugsfugs]

I know a little about this. In CA if you hold as the property as CP, when one spouse dies the basis on the ENTIRE property will be stepped up to fair market value. Meaning you will likely pay much less capital gains tax when you sell it. If the property is not held as CP only the basis of the spouse who dies will be bumped up to FMV. Typically, the basis is what you paid for the property, cost basis. Thus, if the value goes up you pay the difference between your “basis” and what you sell for. However, at death the basis of the property owner is stepped up to FMV.

If you hold as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants in common, you should confirm) and one of you dies, the property AUTOMATICALLY transfers to the other person upon death. As such, if you got divorced but both still owned the property and one of you died, the other’s heirs would get nothing.

None of this matters that much unless you plan to keep the property for a long time or something unfortunate happens.

I might talk to an attorney if you are concerned. I am not sure I have all this perfectly straight.

Also, I believe you can later put property into a trust regardless of how you take title now. Watch what Congress does with the estate tax this year.

[ugsfugs]

I know a little about this. In CA if you hold as the property as CP, when one spouse dies the basis on the ENTIRE property will be stepped up to fair market value. Meaning you will likely pay much less capital gains tax when you sell it. If the property is not held as CP only the basis of the spouse who dies will be bumped up to FMV. Typically, the basis is what you paid for the property, cost basis. Thus, if the value goes up you pay the difference between your “basis” and what you sell for. However, at death the basis of the property owner is stepped up to FMV.

If you hold as joint tenants (as opposed to tenants in common, you should confirm) and one of you dies, the property AUTOMATICALLY transfers to the other person upon death. As such, if you got divorced but both still owned the property and one of you died, the other’s heirs would get nothing.

None of this matters that much unless you plan to keep the property for a long time or something unfortunate happens.

I might talk to an attorney if you are concerned. I am not sure I have all this perfectly straight.

Also, I believe you can later put property into a trust regardless of how you take title now. Watch what Congress does with the estate tax this year.

[ugsfugs]

I think I just didn’t chose my words correctly. I just meant that the choice to file individually rather than jointly might have additional consequences on how much tax you pay. The consequences may not be $4K worth of additional tax (equal to the credit your wife might be entitled to), but you might want to speak with someone (an accountant) in order to determine what they would be.

Also, you may know that a married person filing individually only gets $4K, but that is what I was referring to. Here is the excerpt from the statute stating that.

IRC 36(b)(1)(B)
(B) Married individuals filing separately.–In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting “$4,000” for “$8,000”.

[ugsfugs]

I think I just didn’t chose my words correctly. I just meant that the choice to file individually rather than jointly might have additional consequences on how much tax you pay. The consequences may not be $4K worth of additional tax (equal to the credit your wife might be entitled to), but you might want to speak with someone (an accountant) in order to determine what they would be.

Also, you may know that a married person filing individually only gets $4K, but that is what I was referring to. Here is the excerpt from the statute stating that.

IRC 36(b)(1)(B)
(B) Married individuals filing separately.–In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting “$4,000” for “$8,000”.

[ugsfugs]

I think I just didn’t chose my words correctly. I just meant that the choice to file individually rather than jointly might have additional consequences on how much tax you pay. The consequences may not be $4K worth of additional tax (equal to the credit your wife might be entitled to), but you might want to speak with someone (an accountant) in order to determine what they would be.

Also, you may know that a married person filing individually only gets $4K, but that is what I was referring to. Here is the excerpt from the statute stating that.

IRC 36(b)(1)(B)
(B) Married individuals filing separately.–In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting “$4,000” for “$8,000”.

[ugsfugs]

I think I just didn’t chose my words correctly. I just meant that the choice to file individually rather than jointly might have additional consequences on how much tax you pay. The consequences may not be $4K worth of additional tax (equal to the credit your wife might be entitled to), but you might want to speak with someone (an accountant) in order to determine what they would be.

Also, you may know that a married person filing individually only gets $4K, but that is what I was referring to. Here is the excerpt from the statute stating that.

IRC 36(b)(1)(B)
(B) Married individuals filing separately.–In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting “$4,000” for “$8,000”.

[ugsfugs]

I think I just didn’t chose my words correctly. I just meant that the choice to file individually rather than jointly might have additional consequences on how much tax you pay. The consequences may not be $4K worth of additional tax (equal to the credit your wife might be entitled to), but you might want to speak with someone (an accountant) in order to determine what they would be.

Also, you may know that a married person filing individually only gets $4K, but that is what I was referring to. Here is the excerpt from the statute stating that.

IRC 36(b)(1)(B)
(B) Married individuals filing separately.–In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting “$4,000” for “$8,000”.

[Author]

Posts