Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Not too pithy but certainly as accurate as a generalization
can be.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

Okay then ; how about..... "You never get more than
you pay for, and many times, even less".

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsford[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

Well, you pay for what you get. You don't always get what you
pay for.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

pgattocpa[at]excite.com wrote:
- quote -

he didn't pay? Remember, you gets what you pays for.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

please sign this retainer agreement.

Bob Daniels

[Client: "Counselor, why did you send me a bill for $100 last month? We
didn't talk at all." Attorney: "Yes, but one day when I was walking along I
saw someone who looked like you -- and I had to cross the street to find out
it wasn't you."]

[At a dinner party, Doctor turns to Lawyer and says: "It makes me uneasy
when people ask me for informal medical advice. Do you get asked for
informal legal advice?" Lawyer: "When people do that to me I tell them
I'll send a bill the next day." Doctor: "That's a good idea." And in the
next day's mail the Doctor finds a bill from the Lawyer.]

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Robert Daniels wrote:
- quote -

SNIP

- quote -

So attorney's doing *pro bono* work are not providing legal
advice?!? <G
Peter C. Gatto, CPA

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-taxes[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Just to be clear, those are two different issues. Of course
the two year ownership test must be satisfied. That was
never a question.

The question is, are dower right (which are a certain type
of present ownership interest) "ownership" for this purpose?
Sounds like you're saying the answer is no.

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

Why is it relevant? FEDERAL law says that a spouse only has
to LIVE in the property for two years, and is considered to
have owned it for two years so long as the other spouse has.
I don't see where filing separate returns has ANY bearing
on that.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

No. The federal rules regarding the exclusion of gain
doesn't follow state property rights. If you are married
and file a separate tax return, you have to meet the 2 year
ownership and use test to get the $250K exclusion.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

jdadverb[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

Mr Moderator:
Many of us in Southern Florida still pronounce the last word
of your statement sans a final vowel. Those who do include
an ending vowel prefer the correct one, which is 'a'. That
is the feminine ending, which some (not I, of course) might
think is the appropriate form for that particular word.<g
Dick: rotflmao

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

jdadverb[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

But Dick, if her name is not on the title, she has nothing
to sell, therefore how can she exclude any gain?

ChEar$,
Harlan

ANOTHER COMMENT FROM DA MODERATOR:
Harlan, mi amigo, it appears that someone gave you some
bad scotch (if there is such a thing).

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

- quote -

I'm not sure whether that situation has been squarely
addressed. My "guess" would be that it would depend on
whether the rights obtained were clearly a "present
interest," versus something more in the nature of an
"expectancy." For example, I doubt that a mere "right of
survivorship" would be sufficient.

There is some verbiage out there regarding ownership via
trusts and whether various beneficiaries might be entitled
to the 121 exclusion. Perhaps that would provide analogous
situations.

MTW

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-taxes[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Under the laws of most states, when someone with property
marries someone without property, the one without
immediately gets some legal rights in the property of the
other. Will those rights (e.g. community or dower rights)
be sufficient to allow the two to take the exclusion on
separate returns?

Stu

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<jdadverb[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Tax Code Section 121(b)(2)(A) says you get the $500K
exclusion if:
you file a joint return, and
you both meet the use test "main residence for 2 of last
5 years", and *either* of you meets the ownership test
"owned for 2 of last 5 years."

So title does not have to be in both names to get the $500K
exclusion.

Bob Daniels ("Free advice isn't legal advice.")

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

jdadverb[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

The Moderator is correct. If you file a joint return only
one of you has to meet the 2 year ownership test. You both
have to meet the 2 year use test and you both would have to
meet the once every 2 year exclusion test to qualify for the
$500K exclusion.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

jdadverb[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

Our esteemed moderator is correct. As long as you have been
married for at least two of the five years prior to sale,
and your spouse meets the occupancy test, you can claim the
$500,000 exclusion. If you are NOT married, putting her name
on the deed would not work - unless she is on the deed for
two years prior to sale.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

I am married, but the title of my home is just in my name
because we were not married when I purchased the home. We've
lived in the house for the past 6 years together so we meet
the use requirement. We are now selling the house. Since we
file jointly, can we claim the entire $500,000 or does the
title need to be held in both of our names to claim $500k
(and therefore we can only claim $250k for me)?

If it's the latter, can I quickly change the title to both
of our names before we sell it so that we can claim the full
$500k exclusion?

====
From the Moderator who does not even do his own taxes:
You are married and you both meet the requirement - so
as they say in Southern Florida: NO PROBLEMO.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only > << and does NOT constitute legal OR professional advice. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2005) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >