Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I owe $6k in taxes for 2008 and already paid them through payroll deductions, and if I buy a 200K home the day after the bill is signed, then I would get the $6k back AND have the option of rolling over the rest of the $15k tax credit to 2009 taxes or taking 9k lump sum?
Sweet. I'm so pushing back my closing if that is the case.
If I owe $6k in taxes for 2008 and already paid them through payroll deductions, and if I buy a 200K home the day after the bill is signed, then I would get the $6k back AND have the option of rolling over the rest of the $15k tax credit to 2009 taxes or taking 9k lump sum?
Sweet. I'm so pushing back my closing if that is the case.
D
Almost correct. From all I have read, you won't have the option of taking a lump sum in 2009. The unused-for-2008-taxes portion of the 14K would only be available to you for your 2009 return. So if you have $6000 taken out again, then after FIRST applying whatever deductions you will take in 2009 for your mortgage interest and property taxes your tax liability is reduced to say... um... $4500, that remaining $9000 of the 15K credit would then be applied -- and you would get back that $4500 that was originally deducted PLUS what you would have otherwise gotten back due to your normal deductions. So in the end you would again get the full $6000 back that was deducted from your paycheck. But you would lose the remainder of that (unused) $9000 carryover credit from 08, since it is only "good" for two tax years.
My nephew has a closing scheduled for next Monday but since there's no guarantee the bill will be signed by then, he is going to call his attorney today to get it postponed until sometime the following week (23rd-27th) in order to take advantage of the new credit.
This is a credit right? So why would you LOSE any of it regardless of your tax liabaility?
This isn't a deduction.
The $7500 credit was not dependant on your tax liability and not sure why this credit would be either? Where does it state that it hinges on your tax liabilty?
This is a credit right? So why would you LOSE any of it regardless of your tax liabaility?
This isn't a deduction.
The $7500 credit was not dependant on your tax liability and not sure why this credit would be either? Where does it state that it hinges on your tax liabilty?
In the Senate version of the bill, on page 436. I'm paraphrasing, but it basically takes 15 sentences to say that your credit may not be greater than the total of your tax liabilities.
Remember, it's a CREDIT agaisnt your TAXES. It's not a giveaway of cash. Why does anyone think they should be getting more taxes than they put in?
In the Senate version of the bill, on page 436. I'm paraphrasing, but it basically takes 15 sentences to say that your credit may not be greater than the total of your tax liabilities.
Remember, it's a CREDIT agaisnt your TAXES. It's not a giveaway of cash. Why does anyone think they should be getting more taxes than they put in?
I am just basing it off the $7500 credit that was not dependent on your tax liabilties.
Nothing to do with getting more than I put in. I think the credit is stupid and that it should be yanked. But that is just me.
I am just basing it off the $7500 credit that was not dependent on your tax liabilties.
Nothing to do with getting more than I put in. I think the credit is stupid and that it should be yanked. But that is just me.
Perhaps it's because of the business I am in, but this is one of the items in the "stimulus" bill that I think is a good idea. It doesn'tt take money from one person to give to another, it doesn't put millions of dollars of additional money into programs that have funding already but want more, it actually STIMULATES people to make a home purchase, which is good for the economy in many ways. Like I said, I recognize that I have a bias. Still, I can't see a downside to reducing the tax liability of people who make a house purchase.
In the Senate version of the bill, on page 436. I'm paraphrasing, but it basically takes 15 sentences to say that your credit may not be greater than the total of your tax liabilities.
Remember, it's a CREDIT agaisnt your TAXES. It's not a giveaway of cash. Why does anyone think they should be getting more taxes than they put in?
That's how the existing program works, and the IRS calls it a "Tax Credit." I understand how there would be some confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan
Perhaps it's because of the business I am in, but this is one of the items in the "stimulus" bill that I think is a good idea. It doesn'tt take money from one person to give to another, it doesn't put millions of dollars of additional money into programs that have funding already but want more, it actually STIMULATES people to make a home purchase, which is good for the economy in many ways. Like I said, I recognize that I have a bias. Still, I can't see a downside to reducing the tax liability of people who make a house purchase.
I don't know how I feel about it, exactly, but I believe that it does take money from one person and give it to another. That is how any tax break works.
Is this credit only for first time home buyers, or for any homebuyers?
Anyone who buys a home that is to be used as their primary residence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
