Bill Brown wrote:
[...]
- quote -

Or to put another way, there is an asymmetric treatment of use other
than as a primary residence, depending on whether before or after the
two years used as a primary residence. Use before counts against you,
use after (up to three years) does not. ("Use before" does not include
use before 2009 due to a "grandfather" clause in the new law).

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Apr 28, 4:55*pm, "Phillip Marti" <prm20...[at]verizon.net> wrote:
- quote -

The above reduction does NOT apply to primary residences in the
situation described by the OP. It does have the effect of applying to
some properties that were rental first, then converted to primary
residence.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"D. Stussy" <spam[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Sorry, you're right. The other spouse has to meet the use requirement
(as her personal residence for two years). But it is not required that
they were married at the time, or that she ever owned any part of the
property.

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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

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

- quote -

It was in one of last year's housing bills. The calculation now goes:

1. Gain = net selling price - adjusted basis

2. Gain equal to depreciation allowed or allowable after 5/6/1997 is taxed
as ordinary income with a maximum rate of 25%.

3. You then calculate the percentage of total ownership that is after
12/31/2008 and not the primary residence. That percentage of the remaining
gain is taxed as a capital gain.

4. The remaining gain is available for the 121 exclusion.

--------------
Phil Marti, VITA Volunteer
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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Apr 26, 6:16 pm, "Alexzendor" <lall...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

There were some posts on this newsgroup about a kind of reduction in
the exclusion by some ratio of the number of years used as a rental
divided by the total number of years. I can't seem to find that info
again. Does anyone remember?

Thanks to 121(d)(6), you won't be to exclude depreciation. So if you
convert the rental to a second hone, your depreciation will be
reduced, but the recapture will be reduced too.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BFA89E4CD2A3spamtraplexregiacom[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

How so, if the spouse never lived there?

A non-owner spouse who did live there can have the exclusion. An owner
spouse who never lived there can't.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Exactly. The "clock" Bill refers to is the rule that says that you get
the $250,000 exclusion if you have owned and lived in the home for a
total of two years out of the last five.

So assuming OP does not move back in to the home, he can still get the
exclusion as long as he sells the home within three years after he
moved out.

Oh, and if he gets married before the sale, he gets two exclusions.

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 Apr 26, 9:16*pm, "Alexzendor" <lall...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Converting the rental property back to a (2nd) personal residence will
do nothing to change the deadline for selling the CA house and
excluding up to $250,000 in gains. That clock started running when the
CA house stopped being your primary residence.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

I own two houses one in CA and another in NC. I lived in CA home from 1998
to 2006 and since 2007 I converted CA home into a rental property. I am
currently working in NC and living in my home in NC as primary home.

Is it possible to convert my CA rental property into residential 2nd
home without living in it and without impacting the $250K gains I am
entitled to till the end of this year. Reason I want to do all this is to
avoid selling this year in low market.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >