If you’re opposed to extending the first time homebuyer’s credit (I am), you’re probably in the minority. And you’re definitely not in the Senate. The Senate voted unanimously to approve the bill and the House is expected to follow suit (at least the approval bit).
Under the new law, the first time homebuyer’s credit would be extended to April 30, 2010 to sign a contract to buy a home and another sixty days to close. *Whew, just in time for the November elections.*
The bill also extends the credit to homeowners who have lived in their current home for five of the last eight years – those folks get a reduced credit of $6,500 for homes purchased after November 30, 2009 (but before the April deadline).
Additionally, income caps were raised to $125,000 a year for individuals and $225,000 a year for married couples.
Raising the income caps? The only sensible part of the plan.
The new law will cost taxpayers about a billion dollars a month. Yes, a billion.
According to a recent report released by Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips, all but about 200,000 of the 1.4 million first-time buyers who claimed the first time homebuyer’s credit in 2009 would have purchased a home even without the incentive. The cost to taxpayers? $8.5 billion. If you do the math, that means that the real “cost” to taxpayers for increasing home sales is about $42,500 per home. Let that sink in for a minute.
Goldman Sachs also estimates that all of that money only resulted in boosting prices by 5% – and that includes the idea that sellers increased their prices in anticipation of the credit, something that I was concerned about (you may recall that I wasn’t a fan of the bill in the first place).
I don’t think anyone will argue that the bill did nothing. It clearly did something – at least 200,000 felt compelled to buy under the plan. But I am concerned about the cost. I don’t think we can fix everything by throwing more money at it (except maybe baseball but that just makes me sound like a bitter Phillies’ fan). I guess I’m oddly more laissez-faire than Congress (who’d have thunk it?) but *gasp* what about the notion of letting the housing market right itself? We’ve had two years of housing credits (yes, there was a stimulus credit in 2008) and now we’re pushing off to 2010. When does it end?
You know what they say in Congress, if it’s not broke (enough), keep trying until it is…
So, with that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced an extension of the first time homebuyer’s credit.
Despite evidence that the credit has been used inappropriately – and perhaps criminally – lawmakers have agreed to extend the credit through the end of April. In addition to the expanded credit for first time homebuyers, a reduced credit of $6500 would be available to home buyers who have been in their current residence for a consecutive five-year period in the past eight years.
Income limits under the new bill would be increased to $125,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples, from the current $75,000 and $150,000. The credit phases out for people making more than those amounts.
Does that cover everybody? Does everyone get a tax credit now? Cause we wouldn’t want to be handing out that free money and leave someone out.
And the National Association of Realtors? They’re sleeping well? Good.
But just to make sure it passes, the bill is reportedly being tacked on to a measure that would extend unemployment benefits. Of course. Because nobody would vote against the jobless.
Sheesh.
So, who among us didn’t see this coming? IRS Commish Doug Shulman has announced the establishment of a new enforcement unit targeting the very wealthy. The group, called the Global High Wealth Industry, will specifically investigate partnerships, offshore trusts and other techniques used by the wealthy to hide income.
How wealthy is wealthy? Unlike a number of reality TV shows of late, this isn’t about faux millionaires. Try tens of millions of dollars wealthy.
The new enforcement group comes on the heels of a recent amnesty program offered to taxpayers who had been hiding money offshore. Tax pros, including me, viewed the amnesty program as the writing on the wall that the IRS would be ramping up enforcement. A mere two weeks after the extended amnesty deadline, the IRS confirmed that suspicion.
Whether the new enforcement group is a success remains to be seen. Some critics argue that an additional level of administration won’t help – and may, in fact, just confuse matters. But Shulman sees it differently: “You cannot assess compliance among the nation’s wealthiest individuals by looking only at their 1040s…. Our goal is to better understand the entire economic picture of the enterprise controlled by the wealthy individual and to assess the tax compliance of that overall enterprise.”
Taxpayer asks:
Last year, I moved in with my boyfriend at his condo. He lost his job so I paid most of the bills. I paid the mortgage direclty for most of the year. I also paid some of his credit card bills, the car payment and some of his child support paymnets so he didn’t get behind again. Can I take any of these things off on my taxes? Would it make a difference if we got married?
Taxgirl says:
You cannot deduct the cost of credit cards and car payments for personal use. Personal loans are never deductible.
Child support is likewise not deductible; in fact, child support is considered “tax neutral” (neither deductible to the payor nor taxable to the payee), unlike spousal support.
Mortgage interest is only deductible when you’re legally responsible for the note. Here, you’re clearly not since you indicated that it’s your boyfriend’s condo.
Now for the bigger question:
If you got married, it would only change the mortgage bit in terms of your deductions. Your husband would be able to take the mortgage interest deduction and charge it against your income. You’d also be able to claim an additional personal exemption against your income, assuming he’s still not working. Of course, this would not apply to last year – just this tax year if you got married by December 31, 2009.
I’m actually asked a lot whether it makes more sense to be married – or not – based on taxes. The answer is that it always depends on your situation from a tax perspective, though it tends, under the current system, to be more beneficial to file as married than single. Again, really facts and circumstances dependent.
That said, I run a business with my husband. And as I approach my own anniversary (it’s next week), I can honestly say that a business is not the same as a marriage. In business, you tend to make decisions that are largely based on dollars. In marriage, not so much.
This is not to say that financial decisions aren’t an important consideration in a marriage. It certainly is (you want to think about, for example, whether your potential spouse and you are compatible in terms of how you view money). But marriage is tough enough between two people: don’t drag Uncle Sam into it, too.
Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.
Have a question? Ask the taxgirl! – Now on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/taxgirl
