URGENT – IRS and FTB Update Regarding Short Sales

in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The California Association of Realtors yesterday issued a press release stating that, as a result of recent rulings by the Internal Revenue Service and California Franchise Tax Board, mortgage debt forgiven in a California short sale is no longer taxable as income.

This is huge news, since the tax exemption for this income tax was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013 when the Mortgage Debt Relief Act expired.  Without these rulings from IRS and FTB, California homeowners whose short sales did not close by year end were facing potentially enormous tax liability.

The IRS ruling was contained in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer.  The FTB ruling was in a letter obtained the C.A.R. from Board of Equalization member George Runner.

The rationale for the rulings appears to be that debt forgiven in a short sale is not considered “recourse” debt under California law, thus exempting it from taxation.

The C.A.R. press release does not state whether this ruling also will apply to short sale of non-primary residences in California, or if it is limited to only certain types of mortgage debt.  I have requested my tax experts to review the actual letters and updated regulations to clarify these issues; I will provide that response immediately upon receipt.

At this point, it appears that similar protections will be extended to homeowners whose properties are foreclosed after December 31, 2013 where the debt forgiven was used to buy, build, or make substantial improvements to a primary residence.  It does not appear these protections will apply to “deed in lieu” transactions.

California homeowners with pending short sales may breathe a sigh of relief.  For these folks, it would appear that Christmas came a few weeks early this year.

SB 30 Update

in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Just a quick update on the status of the California “debt forgiveness” tax measure:

As previously reported, the California Senate passed the California Association of Realtors-sponsored tax relief bill without a single “no” vote on June 20.  The bill was then referred to the state Assembly, where it continues to languish.  A hearing on the bill is scheduled before the Assembly’s Revenue and Taxation committee on August 12, 2013.

As also reported, the bill as currently drafted remains linked to Senate Bill 391, which imposes new fees for the recording of real estate documents, and which SB 30-sponsor CAR opposes.  This means SB 30 will fail unless SB 391 also passes, or unless the two bills are unlinked.  SB 391 is also scheduled for a hearing on August 12, 2013 before the Assembly’s Housing & Community Committee.

Stay tuned….

 

SB 30 Still Mired in Legislative Limbo

in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Hard to believe it’s now been more than 6 months since Senator Ron Calderon introduced Senate Bill 30 on December 3, 2012.  The bill passed an important hurdle late last week following passage by the Senate (36-0), and has now been to the Assembly’s Revenue and Taxation Committee.

A  recent amendment to the bill has created significant controversy and resulted in loss of support from its initial sponsor and strongest supporter, the California Association of Realtors.

Specifically, the bill as currently drafted now requires the passage of a separate piece of legislation, Senate Bill 391, also passes: “This act shall become operative only if Senate Bill 391 of the 2013–14 Regular Session is enacted and takes effect.”

SB 391 would establish a $75 per document recording tax to fund an affordable housing trust fund.  C.A.R., according to a recent press release, is opposing SB 391 “because it unfairly adds to the cost of recording real estate documents.”

It remains to be seen whether the State Assembly will further amend SB 30, including, possibly, the removal of the SB 391 link.  Any differences between the Senate and Assembly versions will be resolved in a concurrence committee made up of members of each house. The Governor will have thirty days to sign or veto the bill.

Meanwhile, sellers of underwater properties, or owners facing foreclosure, remain uncertain whether, and to what extent, they may face state tax consequences related to the transfer of their homes.  Certainly, a prompt resolution of the legislative impasse would bring welcome and needed clarity to a currently muddied real estate market.