"removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

An intra-family loan is only subject to gift tax if interest charged
is lower than the minimum amount provided by the IRS. Then, as long
as the imputed interest is less than the annual exclusion, it's not
reportable on a gift tax return.

In this case the loan, if it is a loan, is certainly not without
compensation to the lender. In fact the compensation could be
substantial, since the parent will be taking half of any increase in
value.

- quote -

And if the value of the property increases by 3.7% per year, the
father will realize a return of 11.1% per year under the arrangement
proposed. That's certainly no gift.

- quote -

An owner living in the property still gets the $250,000 exemption.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 27, 6:06*pm, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

According to the court case, the intra-family loan is subject to the
gift tax. The principal of 50k itself is not taxable, as it is the
loan. Of course, the terms of the loan should be in writing so that
the IRS does not construe the principal as income. However, the
interest that could have been charged (ie. the "imputed interest") is
a gift.

Suppose I lend my famliy member 10 million interest-free, and they
will pay it back. The interest and dividends (assuming I lent them
stock) would be so huge in one month - about 41k assuming 5% a year.
After 3 months they would pay back the 10 million, but they would have
41k*3=123k in interest. So according to the IRS, this interest is a
gift, and the person who lent the money must either pay gift tax or
take it out of their lifetime exclusion.

The original post had an amount of 50k, and at 5% a year the imputed
interest is $2,500 a year. Nothing to worry about, unless he is also
sending his son large checks seperately.

As an aside, if the parent invest that 50k in a 10 year bond, he would
get 3.7% interest a year (today's rate), free of state tax.

My thinking is that if you want to avoid gift tax issues you must
charge interest, and furthermore the interest should be a fair market
value, not discount. Then you would report the income on your tax
return, and the person paying the interest may be able to deduct the
interest if it is qualified loan. But what is a fair market interest
rate?

- quote -

Good point. Now if a home is jointly owned by two people but only one
lived in the house, is the exemption still 250k or is it reduced to
125k?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

NadCixelsyd <nadcixelsyd[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

This is not as simple as it appears to be and you need
a competent professional to look at it upfront and
personal.

Without detailed knowledge of the situation, it would
appear that you might want to be tenants-in-common to
avoid the annual imputed interest from what every IRS
auditor will classify as an interest-free intra-family
loan. Be aware that the IRS almost always attempts
to do that.

Your interests may be best served by having a trust own
the condo because your equity position can be detailed
out in the trust agreement.

There are other issues that will affect the value of
the property such as his ability to rent the condo.

Keep in mind that every mortgage I have sign required
me to state that the down payment money was mine and
his down payment money is not his. Thus, he must
state that it came from you and that may affect the
mortgage interest rate.

Properly structured you will have a long-term capital
gain. Improperly structured you will have annual
imputed interest and possibly ordinary income of the
eventual payout.

I have never handled such a transaction, but I am
certain you need professional assistance.

Remember tax planning only works if you do it before
a transaction.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com" <removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

That's assuming it's actually a gift. If it's either a loan or an
investment of some kind, it's not a gift and no gift tax is incurred.
Since Dad expects to get his money back (especially if they put an
agreement to that effect in writing), and with interest to boot, I
doubt there's any kind of gift involved.

- quote -

If the $50,000 is a gift, why would a payment back from his son of
$100,000 be anything other than a gift?

On the other hand since the $50,000 is either a loan or an
investment, his receipt of that back will be tax free, and the
balance will either be ordinary income (if it's a loan) or capital
gain (if it's an investment).

Unless the father actually lives there and has his name on the title
to the property, the $250,000 exemption does not apply.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Feb 27, 1:37*pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

This topic has come up in this newsgroup before. The interest that
you could have charged on the 50k is considered a gift. See
http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/330/case.html. However, on 50k it
would probably be well under 12k.

The 100k you would get at the end would be income to you. I don't
know if doing a partnership return would help you in anyway (in order
to take advantage of the 250k exclusion).

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

NadCixelsyd <nadcixelsyd[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

Aside from the issue of who who claims what for tax purposes (a
question not specifically asked), this isn't a tax question. But I'll
give a brief answer anyway.

It depends on a lot of things, and could go either way. Or it could be
a security (e.g. stock), which is neither but sort of in between.

You should have a written agreement detailing exactly what is to happen
under what circumstances. If you want claim an equity interest you
should also either put your name on title or put title into the name of
a partnership. In your agreement detail who claims what income and
write-offs for tax purposes, but be sure to run those buy an accountant
or tax lawyer to be sure they reflect "economic reality."

There are probably other particulars that I can't think of off the top
of my head.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

My son wants to buy a condo for $150k. Our agreement is as follows:
I give him $50,000 for the down payment and he gets a $100k mortgage.
However, it's not a gift. It has the following condition: When the
property is sold, the $50,000 is to be returned. In addition, I will
get 50% of the capital gain at the time of sale. (e.g. If we sold the
property for $250,000, I would get $100,000.)

My step-up in equity (33% to 50%) is offset by his promise to pay all
expenses (like the mortgage and taxes) in the interim. It's not an
interest-free loan, it's an equity purchase. Or is it???

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >