Archives

Tax implications for short sales and foreclosures

I am often asked by clients what the tax implications are should they choose to pursue a short sale or their property is the subject of a foreclosure. Technically, and they’re right. Debt obligations that are forgiven are usually counted as income to that individual. For example, if you obtain a home loan for $300,000 but sell the property via the short sale process for $200,000, that $100,000 difference that you are no longer required to pay would be taxable as income under normal circumstances. In 2007, the federal government passed the “Mortgage Forgiveness and Debt Relief Act.”

The IRS describes it as follows:

“If you borrow money from a commercial lender and the lender later cancels or forgives the debt, you may have to include the cancelled amount in income for tax purposes, depending on the circumstances. When you borrowed the money you were not required to include the loan proceeds in income because you had an obligation to repay the lender. When that obligation is subsequently forgiven, the amount you received as loan proceeds is normally reportable as income because you no longer have an obligation to repay the lender. The lender is usually required to report the amount of the canceled debt to you and the IRS on a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt.”

Cancellation of Debt is not always taxable, however. According to the IRS there are some exceptions:

–Qualified principal residence indebtedness: This is the exception created by the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007 and applies to most homeowners.
–Bankruptcy: Debts discharged through bankruptcy are not considered taxable income.
–Insolvency: If you are insolvent when the debt is cancelled, some or all of the cancelled debt may not be taxable to you. You are insolvent when your total debts are more than the fair market value of your total assets.
–Certain farm debts: If you incurred the debt directly in operation of a farm, more than half your income from the prior three years was from farming, and the loan was owed to a person or agency regularly engaged in lending, your cancelled debt is generally not considered taxable income.
–Non-recourse loans: A non-recourse loan is a loan for which the lender’s only remedy in case of default is to repossess the property being financed or used as collateral. That is, the lender cannot pursue you personally in case of default. Forgiveness of a non-recourse loan resulting from a foreclosure does not result in cancellation of debt income. However, it may result in other tax consequences

See Publication 4681.

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 allows homeowners who have benefited from debt cancellation—usually from a short sale, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, or foreclosure—to exclude the “income realized” from the forgiveness. Exclusion of income resulting from a cancellation of debt means that the amount forgiven or waived from the creditor (usually a bank) is not considered income and is excluded from determining your federal income tax basis.

Going back to the example in the first paragraph, the $100,000 debt that was cancelled would be excluded from that individual’s income of that year. In a normal year (without the Act in place), if that person made $50,000, but was forgiven $100,000 through a short sale, he or she would be required to include that sum as income for that year, making his income $150,000 and subject to the corresponding tax rate. Because that $100,000 is excluded from his income by virtue of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, his tax rate is preserved at the $50,000 level.

The above information can be found at the following link: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=179414,00.html

I would also refer you to an in-depth review of the law at http://www.homesalessandiego.com/blog/mortgage-debt-forgiveness-law/.

*Lawyers at Dickson Steinacker, PS are NOT tax specialists. Federal income taxes are a serious matter and should be dealt with through counsel from a qualified accountant or tax attorney. Because much of our business deals with real estate issues such as short sales, foreclosures and loan modifications, we feel it is important to be cognizant of the broader implications of debt cancellation (hence, the above blog entry). If you are in need of more detailed/specific guidance for your tax matters, we recommend contacting a tax attorney or qualified accountant. Do not rely solely on this entry for your tax strategy.

Foreclosures: Washington State is a “non-recourse” state (sort of)

Sign_of_the_Times-ForeclosureOne of the common statements made to me when new clients call to discuss their foreclosure, is the following:  “I don’t care if there is a deficiency when the bank forecloses on my property because Washington is a non-recourse state,” implying that he or she is free of having to pay a deficiency should the house sell for less than what is owed.  The response I always give to that proclamation is “it depends.”

Banks may choose between two options when deciding how to foreclose on property.  The most common (by far) is the non-judicial foreclosure.  This type of foreclosure is straightforward: the bank uses its leverage under their Deed of Trust on the home (think of the Deed of Trust as a very powerful lien…which it is) to compel a sale by the trustee that services the Deed.  This sale is called a trustee sale.  Once the property is sold to an innocent third party purchaser at the trustee sale, the bank is barred from collecting any deficiency on the collateral. For example, if your home is worth $300,000 and the bank forecloses on the property through the non-judicial foreclosure method and nets only $200,000 in the sale, the balance of the $100,000 cannot be collected from the borrower.  Thus, while the credit standing of the borrower may have taken a big hit, he or she no longer has to worry about satisfying that debt obligation.

As you might expect, foreclosures are not always that rosy: there lurks another option that banks may use at their discretion: the judicial foreclosure.

A judicial foreclosure is executed through the courts and is easily identified because it is an actual lawsuit against the homeowner.  How is this possible, you ask?  Why doesn’t the bank just go after the Deed of Trust and sell the property?  A judicial foreclosure goes one step further than regular non-judicial foreclosure: it not only allows the bank to compel a sale of the property, but it provides an avenue by which the bank can obtain a deficiency judgment for whatever balance was lacking in the sale.  Going back to our example above, if that individuals home is sold for the $100,000 deficiency, the bank can move the court to have that sum converted into a judgment against you. Judgments are nasty because they become automatic liens on all real and personal property.  With a judgment a bank can garnish wages and pursue other avenues against the borrower’s assets.

It is still a mystery to me why some people are pursued via judicial foreclosure rather than non-judicial foreclosure.  However, if I had to guess why they choose that option, I would have to say it’s because they suspect (right or wrong) that the borrower has money to cover the judgment.

Thoughts on forensic audits and what they can (or can’t do) for you

Lately I’ve been fielding calls from individuals that have obtained what are called “forensic audits” of their mortgage documents.  Usually, this is in conjunction with a difficult scenario that they have found themselves in, where they are behind on their payments and are looking for any ammunition to defend against a foreclosure.  In theory, a forensic audit is straightforward: a company will comb through your mortgage documents for “violations” or other signs of misconduct by the lending institutions.  This is usually not too difficult a task given that many of the regulations that control these transactions are extremely technical.  Violating them is easy, in other words.

The bigger issue is what to do with the violations when they are discovered.  There has not been a tremendous amount of precedent in this regard (at least in Washington, there hasn’t been), but I would advise against the notion that faulty mortgage documents equal borrower keeping home.  That is not likely to happen for a few reasons — first, the bank did loan money out to the individual, which technically, would need to return the funds if the transaction were undone and reset; second, the parties relied and acted upon the loan.  A court could reset the entire mortgage and order that, if possible, the parties be put back to their proverbial starting points.  This obviously present a problem in and of itself, given that the home may be underwater and the borrower may not have the funds to refund the bank for the money issued in the original loan.

So, in short, for those of you leaning on a forensic audit as the resolution to your mortgage predicament, I’d make sure to have a backup plan.

Forecosures to be “up” in 2011

According to a recent article, many experts are predicting that the foreclosure crisis will continue through 2011.  Currently, there are about 5 million borrowers at least 2 months behind on their mortgage payments.

Bank of America resumes foreclosures

According to the LA Times, Bank of America is ending its temporary foreclosure “freeze” in 23 states.

Given that FHA has altered the waiting period for those who engage in strategic foreclosures (this applies to those who make the strategic decision to “walk away” from their home), seeking a loan modification might be the best option.  According to “HAMP” or the Home Affordable Modification Program: “Borrower eligibility is based on meeting specific criteria including:

 

1) borrower is delinquent on their mortgage or faces imminent risk of default
2) property is occupied as borrower’s primary residence
3) mortgage was originated on or before Jan. 1, 2009 and unpaid principal balance must be no greater than $729,750 for one-unit properties. 

After determining a borrower’s eligibility, a servicer will take a series of steps to adjust the monthly mortgage payment to 31% of a borrower’s total pretax monthly income:

  • First, reduce the interest rate to as low as 2%,
  • Next, if necessary, extend the loan term to 40 years,
  • Finally, if necessary, forbear (defer) a portion of the principal until the loan is paid off and waive interest on the deferred amount.

Note: Servicers may elect to forgive principal under HAMP on a stand-alone basis or before any modification step in order to achieve the target monthly mortgage payment.”

 

Foreclosures in Seattle spiked in June

This blog post from the Seattle Bubble Blog is quite informative about the most recent foreclosure assessment for the Seattle area.  Perhaps we are starting to see the second waive of foreclosures?

Though I’m sure we will eventually turn this market around, it seems to be clear that we are in it for the long haul.  It does not help with the recent news that Colliers closed its offices in Tacoma, and GVA Kidder Mathews intends to drop its affiliation with GVA (national brand/presence) in the coming months.

One can’t help but wonder whether or not the days of consistent 6–9% annual home appreciation are gone…at least for the foreseeable future.

Walking away from a home, may cost you more than you think

According to this article, published on AOL’s real estate section, if a homeowner simply “walks away” from a mortgage, Fannie Mae is raising the stakes.  Here is a short quote from the article:

Here’s the breakdown for eligibility depending on how you got out of your last mortgage:
Deed-in-Lieu of Foreclosure> — reduced from four years to two years if you can put down 20 percent on your house, four years if you can only put down 10 percent.

Preforeclosure Sale — remains at two years if you can put down 20 percent, four years if you can only put down 10%.

Short Sale — will be the same as pre-foreclosure sale. Currently there are no set rules for short sale.

Strategic Default (Walk Away) — seven years.

 

Suit filed against Bank of America over alleged failure to disburse TARP funds

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAA Seattle law firm, Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, has filed a lawsuit against Bank of America over its apparent failure to satisfactorily distribute TARP funds to stem foreclosures.
According to a press release by Hagens Berman, Bank of America has made an “affirmative decision to slow the loan modification process for reasons that are solely in the bank’s financial interests.”
It will be interesting to monitor how this suit develops, as it strikes at the core issue of whether the government’s injection of capital into the banking market actually resulted in a positive result.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again! The federal government takes another shot at curbing the foreclosure crisis

After the first attempt by the Obama Administration to stem the foreclosure tide fell flat (only a fraction of eligible home owners facing foreclosure secured permanent modifications), the federal government is proposing a broad new initiative.

The New York Times reports that the government will now try to reduce the principal for home loan modifications.  To do this, it intends to provide a program by which those who are “underwater” (home value less than what is owed) can refinance into a government-backed mortgage.

This is significant because most (if not all) loan modifications up to now consisted of banks largely shifting interest rates and extending payment terms.  Thus, the actual principal of the loan was never really effected, merely the interest.  As a result, the underlying problem which plagued a lot of homeowners was never truly addressed (that they simply had purchased homes which were beyond their budget).

To fund this new program, the government intends to utilize $50 billion funds previously allotted to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, more commonly known as “TARP.”  Though reaction from many non-profit groups is generally positive, it remains to be seen whether banks will cooperate with the new program.

Bankruptcy: what are my options?

For people experiencing severe financial difficulties and who are overwhelmed with debt, bankruptcy may be an important option. Whether difficult times are brought on by job loss, medical problems, family breakups, or even financial irresponsibility, bankruptcy can grant you much desired relief. Understanding some basic principles of consumer bankruptcy, however, is imperative in knowing which form of bankruptcy is appropriate.

Within bankruptcy law, there are several different “chapters.” Each “chapter” is specifically designed to help either individuals or businesses in eliminating, resolving, and/or repaying their debts. Selecting which bankruptcy chapter to proceed under, depends on the individual’s or business’s specific circumstances. For individuals (“consumers”) who are seeking relief through the bankruptcy process, two chapters are available: Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. These two bankruptcy chapters differ significantly and offer different results.
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Chapter 7 is commonly referred to as “liquidation bankruptcy.” When an individual proceeds under Chapter 7, a trustee is appointed by the bankruptcy court. The trustee then gathers all of the individual’s property (except any property that is exempt), sells (“liquidates”) it, and distributes the proceeds of the sale to the individual’s creditors. At the end of this process, any outstanding debts are discharged (eliminated). The creditors then chalk-up their losses and move on, while the individual must start anew with very little assets leftover. The Chapter 7 process generally takes about four to six months.
Not everyone is allowed to proceed under Chapter 7, however. To be eligible under Chapter 7, an individual must pass the “means test” (a mechanical formula that is used to determine who can and cannot repay some debt.) If it is determined by the court that the individual’s “current monthly income” is above a certain amount and the individual has the ability to repay some debt, the individual may be denied Chapter 7 relief and may be forced to proceed under Chapter 13. Most people who meet the eligibility requirements proceed under Chapter 7 because, unlike Chapter 13, Chapter 7 takes less time to complete and does not require the individual to pay back any portion of his or her debts.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Chapter 13 differs significantly from Chapter 7’s liquidation method. Commonly referred to as an “Adjustment of Debt” or “Wage Earner’s Plan,” Chapter 13 focuses on using the individual’s future earnings, rather than liquidated property, to pay creditors. When an individual files under Chapter 13, a court-approved plan allows the individual to keep all of his or her property, but the individual must pay a portion of all future income to the creditors. This payout plan lasts for three to five years, depending on the circumstances and the court-approved plan. When the individual has completed the agreed payout plan, any remaining obligations are discharged.
Naturally, eligibility to proceed under Chapter 13 requires that an individual must prove that he or she is capable of paying a portion of his or her future monthly income to creditors for a period of three to five years. If the individual’s income is not regular or is too low, Chapter 13 may be denied. Likewise, if the individual’s total amount of debt is too high, the court may deny Chapter 13. Unlike Chapter 7, Chapter 13 takes much more time to complete. However, the major benefit of Chapter 13 is that the individual is allowed to keep his or her property.
Understanding the main differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 can assist you in knowing which form of bankruptcy will most likely work best for you. Keep in mind, however, that because the bankruptcy process is complex and oftentimes requires professional knowledge to be successful, seeking professional help is your best bet.