cm <charlie.meade[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

Generally, no. It should work out the same.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Gene E. Utterback, EA" <eagent[at]alliancetax.com> wrote> I would be willing to be most anything that it is YOU and
- quote -

Many thanks for all of the helpful replies on this issue.
Clearly, this is a complicated issue, and my original
impressions were probably incorrect. Professional advice is
clearly needed.

With this reply, I wanted to provide a few points of
addtional background and a followup question

1) The property clearly falls in the category of a "vacation
home" with "substantial personal use", when one considers
all of the sharehoders.
2) My wife is a 25% shareholder in the corporation.
3) One of the 25% shareholders is "materially" involved in
the rental business.
4) There have been no analyses within the family of the tax
implications of the S Corporation. When the property was
passed to the heirs (there is no mortgage), it was
established, by the original owner, as a convenient
mechanism to house the shareholder's relative interests in
the property.

What is the signifigance of the S Corporation in this case?
If my owned wife owned it outright, it seems that the tax
implications would be straightforward. However, the losses
are reported as part of the S Corporation on Schedule K-1,
and there are complicating factors, as noted above. Does the
S Corporation change the "deductability" of the losses?

Thanks again for your help.

Charles Meade

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->