Discussion:Sale of principal residence
From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.
From TaxAlmanac
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 20:25, 18 November 2005 Rlw (Talk | contribs) (Discussion:Sale of principle residence moved to Discussion:Sale of principal residence) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 15:56, 19 November 2005 Snooks (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| See http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#d0e1959 | See http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#d0e1959 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Snooks|Date=19 November 2005|Text=Thanks, I understand the rules that were in place a year ago. I simply thought I heard mentioned of a change, but have been unable to find it. }} | ||
Revision as of 15:56, 19 November 2005
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Sale of principal residence
| 15 November 2005 | |
| Husband and wife own and lived in their principle residence for the last four years. Husband passed away this year. If the wife sale the house next year is she still entitled for $500,000 exclusion under IRS section 121? Or she has to sell it this year (the year that husband died). | |
Budrok@Aol.com (talk|edits) said: | 16 November 2005 |
| Must be able to file Joint with deceased spouse (meaning the year he died has to be sold | |
| 17 November 2005 | |
| Be careful, wasn't there a law change that requires 5 year ownership? I am pretty sure that was just covered in the tax seminar I attended. | |
| 18 November 2005 | |
| Just wanted to follow up, this issue has came up twice for me in the last two days. In looking at 2005 Publication 523, page 9 there is an ownership and use test that must be met. Unlike what I thought they said in the tax seminars, it appears possible to exclude some gain and yet not own the home for all of the 5 years. Take a look at the mentioned Publication 523. I am still reviewing notes from the tax seminar to see where I got the idea that 5 year ownership was now a must. Maybe in was in discussing proposed changes. | |
| 18 November 2005 | |
| Snooks, it's two years of the last five. And this is not a recent change. | |
| 19 November 2005 | |
| Thanks, I understand the rules that were in place a year ago. I simply thought I heard mentioned of a change, but have been unable to find it. | |
