Fair enough. I definitely don’t like a sustained climate of 5-10% per year growth in residential real estate.
That is bad for most people, for multiple reasons.
2 Likes
First, the forms don’t dictate the law. If the forms don’t let you do what you want to do, you just have to note it and explain what you’re doing in a statement attached to the return.
Second, not sure why you think it wouldn’t belong there. If your conclusion is that it is in fact deductible in the current year, it would seem to be an “other amounts paid.”
As a threshold matter, you have to have a reasonable basis for believing the tax is due for the period you pay it for.
Additionally, with regard to the taxability of the refund - it’s generally taxable based on the benefit in prior year rule. I briefly read that turbotax article and it seems you’re reading it correctly; they’re just being very careless with their wording. There’s not a one year period of taxability of the refund - if you receive a refund of state income taxes which is attributable to a benefit taken in a prior year, that’s generally included in income in the year of receipt.
3 Likes
[quote=“meed18, post:487, topic:1661, full:true”]
The part where I looked at the first three reports on that site and couldn’t find the math you were referring to, so I thought you were being sarcastic and there was a page 12 somewhere you weren’t linking.[/quote]
Very strange interpretation.
Did you bother to read the Bernstein article ?
Did you read the linked CBPP article ?
From the mouth of the JCT representative, which I transcribed and posted upthread.
[quote=“admiral, post:498, topic:1661, full:true”]
I don’t think that the authors know much about real estate.[/quote]
They don’t know much about economics either.
So I was about to pre-pay next year’s mortgage payments thinking I could deduct the interest on this year’s return only to learn that you can’t do that. You can only pre-pay one month (January).
1 Like
Not an AMT expert, but I was reading about how you might want to prepay your SALT in 2017 before EOY for the deduction, but to watch out for AMT if you considered this. In particular, I read that not only was SALT an AMT preference item so it doesn’t count, it also doesn’t generate an AMT carryforward that you might have hoped to get a tax credit in 2018 if you were then no longer in AMT on account of much lower deductions once the law took effect.
Yes, and I hope he is right about this part: “I guarantee you this: When this red ink starts pouring in, the trickle-downers will bemoan the higher deficits, rend their garments and feign surprise that their growth estimates were wrong. And after this short bit of drama, they’ll once again remember that they’re against debt and deficits, and insist that spending cuts must ensue. These cuts will target Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and safety-net programs.” This is what I really want to happen!
[quote]Did you read the linked CBPP article ?[/quote]No. Linked where?
[quote]From the mouth of the JCT representative, which I transcribed and posted upthread.
[/quote] Please post a link of what you transcribed it from, otherwise I will just assume you got your numbers mixed up. I am interested in reading/hearing the context, because, like I pointed out before and posted the links, I have no idea how there could be a $5.3 trillion increase when people making $40k-50k aren’t seeing an increase until after 2025 and the increase is smaller than the cut they got from 2019-2025.
1 Like
Does anyone know if the rate for Qualified Dividends and Long-Term capital gains will remain at 15% or be reduced to 12%?
I haven’t seen anything suggesting any changes to the capital gain tax rates. I expect they will stay 0 / 15% / 20%, plus the Obamacare tax too which they didn’t get around to repealing.
1 Like
I did notice the pass through discount doesn’t apply to short term capital gains. Unclear if that means long term stock capital gains automatically count.
[quote=“xerty, post:508, topic:1661, full:true”]
Not an AMT expert, but I was reading about how you might want to prepay your SALT in 2017 before EOY for the deduction, but to watch out for AMT if you considered this.[/quote]
The natives are restless in the House, as their bill completely eliminated the AMT, both personal and corporate, and they are balking at the Senate version, but where do they get the money to fill that big hole ?
[quote=“meed18, post:509, topic:1661, full:true”]
Yes, and I hope he is right about this part: “I guarantee you this: When this red ink starts pouring in, the trickle-downers will bemoan the higher deficits, rend their garments and feign surprise that their growth estimates were wrong. And after this short bit of drama, they’ll once again remember that they’re against debt and deficits, and insist that spending cuts must ensue. These cuts will target Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and safety-net programs.” This is what I really want to happen![/quote]
Not bloody likely, as huge margins of Americans want to spend MORE on Social Security. Medicare, and healthcare, and say the Rich & Corporate are way undertaxed. Not to mention the GOP already ran this play and got severely burned.
Yikes. So much for reading.
The Bernstein article has links to the CBPP report, the WSJ article, AND to a leaked part of the JCT REPORT.
The CBPP report ALSO has a link to another leaked part of the JCT REPORT.
The majority in the Senate has blocked the public release of the full report, as it details who gets damaged by their bill, contrary to their fairy dust.
Posting a link to a live broadcast would be a good trick.
You’re welcome to assume what ever you like, as you’ve repeatedly displayed quite the proclivity for leveling false assumptions.
Ahh, so now when I’m asked if I read two links you claim you posted and I answer, “Yes, I read this and I agree [and post a quote], but no I didn’t read that because I don’t see where you posted it,” you accuse me of not reading what you posted because I didn’t click every link INSIDE the story you posted. You are damn near impossible to talk to.
Anyway, now that I’ve clicked on your WaPo link several times, I’ve hit their paywall, so I can’t read whatever it is embedded in that story that you think I should have read. Feel free to post a direct link or I guess I’ll give up and concede that you outsmarted me with your links inside links tactic. I won’t make that mistake again!
You literally transcribed what he was saying from a live broadcast just to post it here? Seriously? You expect me to believe that? Okay. I guess you win. It was transcribed word for word and there was absolutely no context surrounding it, so there is no way you could have possibly misunderstood or left anything out. Even though, according to your transcription, he contradicted his own committee’s published reports. 
3 Likes
I’m also not an AMT expert, but have flirted with it most years recently and had one big bill (due to exercising options) with a carryforward balance still remaining. Has anyone seen any information about how plans to end AMT will affect these balances? Mine is big enough that it will take multiple more years to use up under current rules, maybe even more than five.
Here’s on article that addresses this:
AMT repeal. The Act would repeal the AMT, generally effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017. (Act Sec. 2001(a))
Treatment of carryforwards. If a taxpayer has AMT credit carryforwards, the Act would allow the taxpayer to claim a refund of 50% of the remaining credits (to the extent the credits exceed regular tax for the year) in tax years beginning in 2019, 2020, and 2021, with the remainder claimed in the tax year beginning in 2022. (Act Sec. 2001(b))
That’s just the House version, so it’s still unclear if that happens since the Senate version basically keeps the framework of the AMT only with a somewhat higher deduction limits.
3 Likes
[quote=“meed18, post:516, topic:1661, full:true”]
Ahh, so now when I’m asked if I read two links you claim you posted and I answer, “Yes, I read this and I agree [and post a quote], but no I didn’t read that because I don’t see where you posted it,” you accuse me of not reading what you posted because I didn’t click every link INSIDE the story you posted. You are damn near impossible to talk to.[/quote]
Are you intentionally posting incoherent ramblings ?
So, lemme get this straight. It’s my “tactic” that you previously failed to competently read the article and click on the hyperlinks ?
That’s some projection.
What’s unserious about a representative of the JCT ?
You can believe whatever unsubstantiated thing you like, as you’ve shown numerous times.
I didn’t realize you were playing some kind of game.
Actually, my TiVos have a 30 minute live buffer, so I can rewatch live TV a number of times if I wish to transcribe something.
Further evidence you don’t read. The Senate majority blocked the public publishing of the entire report.
So, have you tired of attempting to play some juvenile game of ‘gotcha’ yet ?
@JoeFriday
I will be as straightforward as I can. Your posts in this thread, and your replies when questioned have made it difficult for me to take your assertions at face value when they do not include a citation. I understand you disagree with the current tax proposal. I’m not surprised by widespread disagreement considering how poorly it is written and the process by which it is being passed. But when you disagree so vehemently that you can’t honestly discuss it with others who may not have the exact same viewpoint, you do the opposition a disservice, whether you want to believe it or not.
10 Likes
Saw an interesting discussion of the SALT deduction and how high tax state R congressmen were under pressure to roll this back somewhat for their rich constituents. Their suggestion was to leave it, but cut the top individual to 35% like the original plan so that everyone ends up lower (even a 10% state tax rate @ 40% deduction is only 4%, less than the drop from 39.6% to 35%). Pay for it by raising the 20% corp tax rate to 22-23%. Would be nice, not sure if they’ll do it tho.
1 Like
[quote=“xerty, post:521, topic:1661, full:true”]
Saw an interesting discussion of the SALT deduction and how high tax state R congressmen were under pressure to roll this back somewhat for their rich constituents. Their suggestion was to leave it, but cut the top individual to 35% like the original plan so that everyone ends up lower (even a 10% state tax rate @ 40% deduction is only 4%, less than the drop from 39.6% to 35%). Pay for it by raising the 20% corp tax rate to 22-23%. Would be nice, not sure if they’ll do it tho.
[/quote]If the AMT is left in place, then the outcome of this issue is meaningless to a lot of people, as their overall tax liability will remain roughly the same.
Repeal AMT, pay with 22% corp tax. Corps can’t squawk too loudly; it’s still a 13 point cut.
Maybe the medical expense deduction will be cut too, like in the house version. Note Susan Collins isn’t in the conference but the senator from Alaska is.
I expect some give on the property tax / SALT / interest expense deduction front. Pay for it with another bump in corp tax rate to 23%? I’d think Trump would be surprised by how obedient Congress has been to his 20% cap.