- quote -

Thanks for reminding me that the Related Party Rules for
in-laws apply to married folks but not those just living
together. Moreover once a mother-in-law, always a
mother-in-law through death or divorce of spouse.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

- quote -

Not this Congress, Stu..... the 105th Congress.

Moderator:
If I ever get to Congress as a Fiscally Conservative
Republican and a Social Justice Moderate with only a few
disingenuous nitwits to my left, shacking up, domestic
contracts, and polygamous cohabitation will be profitable.

Also what's so special about homosexuals that they should
be spared the pain aand suffering of mother-in-laws and
the high cost of divorce?

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

I don't believe so.

But you must be qualified to file MFJ, which means you could
have lived there 10 years without being married, and got
married New Year's Eve.

- quote -

Each must also satisfy the lived in test.

But they don't have to be married for two years, or even two
weeks.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

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

Or consider an unmarried couple with four kids, who between
them earn more than the limit for EIC, but being unmarried,
each individually is within the EIC limits. Moreover, had
they been married only two kids would qualify for EIC but
not being married, each can use two kids for EIC.

Also, if you are a married couple and choose to file MFS,
you generally get punished by losing tax benefits.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

Moderator: "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit"

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

christyr1q[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Yes, otherwise the exclusion is limited to $250,000.

- quote -

Correct...and be considered married for that two years.

- quote -

Sorry, no.

- quote -

And, "If wishes were fishes....nobody would go hungry",
however this one is not supported by the facts.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

christyr1q[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Under IRC §121, both members of a couple can get the
exemption if

"(i) either spouse meets the ownership requirements of
subsection (a) with respect to such property;

"(ii) both spouses meet the use requirements of subsection
(a) with respect to such property; "

In other words, only one needs to meet the ownership
requirement, but both need to meet the use requirement.

Interesting. I never realized it before, but by this
provision Congress is encouraging people to shack up. Odd
for this congress, seems to me.

Stu

Moderator:
Finally Congress agrees with me. Shacking up is the
optimal conjugal relationship. I really should try it
sometime.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

<christyr1q[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Yes. While only one spouse must meet the ownership test,
both must meet the use test. He must be so blinded by love
that he can't comprehend the straightforward explanation in
Pub 523.

<snip
- quote -

As is what would you do with his house for the 2 years
you're living in yours, assuming that your final intention
is to live in his.

Step one is to keep whacking him 'cross the head with the
facts of the tax law until he gets his fantasy solution out
of the way. Then, and only then, will you be able to
reasonably address your options.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

I've looked at Pub 523, and it seems clear to me, but my
intended isn't convinced....

I already meet the ownership test, use test and neither of
us has excluded gain. If we marry and file a joint return,
does he need to independently meet the use test to qualify
for the $500k exclusion.

I believe that in order to meet the "use test" that we must
both have "Lived in the home as your main home for at least
2 years (the use test).".

It is his hope that my living in the house is sufficent.

Both he and I own houses. His is admittedly the nicer
place. However, I've got a gain of almost $450k (maybe less
after the cost basis items are added in). It would be nice
to not have to pay capital gains taxes on that sale. He
doesn't know that he can live in the house as it currently
is for 2 years. So the cost of possible improvements is
also a consideration.

Thanks in advance for any advice (tax or relationship),
-Christy

p.s. I use to be an avid reader of this group, then lost my
access. It's nice to see Helen is still around!

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >