If taxpayer is renting out two rooms in her primary residence, would depreciation be figured on the portion of the property that is rented out? I see in The Tax Book, it states that any reasonable method of allocating expenses between personal and rental use is allowed, but does not mention depreciation.
Room Rental of Primary Residence
Collapse
X
-
Tags: None
-
I'm not so sure you could not end up showing a loss in the posters example.Comment
-
I think you're reasoning is backwards. A rental that's not for profit implies you can't deduct losses. But the inability to deduct losses doesn't imply that it's not for profit. The obvious examples are rental losses limited by the passive activity rules (either because they exceed $25K or the AGI is too high).Comment
-
Some of these rental situations can get pretty confusing, at least to me. In the past I have read Pub. 527 over and over in regards to such. Without reading thru again at the moment, do you have to treat the property as all personal use. If you are renting out two rooms that are 100% for the renters and that makes up say 15% of the total area of the home ... aren't you allowed to show a loss if it worked out as such?Comment
-
Comment
-
Look at pg. 22 pub 527, lower right hand corner under limitations.Comment
-
As mentioned always thought some of these rental situations get confusing to me. You may be correct but I am not totally convinced. Personally I still lean the other way.. that a loss would be allowable.. Page 21 1st column appears to indicate that the portion of a home used exclusively for rental would not be considered personal use, although not exactly on point as it does not reference a regular permanent type of renter.Comment
-
See these discussions (especially Riley2's comments):
Edit: However, after looking at this issue more, it does appear to be more complicated than I initially thought. The home office example I gave is a poor explanation. I still think an argument can be made for the loss to be deductible based on the TaxAlmanac discussions.Last edited by MilTaxEA; 02-24-2012, 10:51 PM.MichaelComment
-
And I'll stand by mine right or wrong that an exclusively rented room is then not considered part of the home and a loss would be allowable.Comment
-
(2) Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this section the term
“dwelling unit” does not include any portion of a unit which is used exclusively as a
hotel, motel, inn, or similar establishment. Property is so used only if it is regularly
available for occupancy by paying customers and only if no person having an interest in
the property is deemed under the rules of this section to have used the unit as a residence
during the taxable year. For example, this exception will apply to a unit entered in a
rental pool (see §1.280A-3(e)) only if the owner of the unit does not use it as a residence
during the taxable year.Comment
-
The beach cottage referenced in the IRS example had a fatal flaw when the actual rental property, viz the cottage, was also used for "excessive" personal use.
For the home-owner renting out rooms in the house, those rooms "stand alone" as separate rental properties. Hence the allocation of operating expenses, depreciation, etc.
Unless the home-owner uses those rooms for personal purposes, I do not see why a rental loss (properly calculated, of course!) could not be used as an offset to other income. Conceptually the situation is not that much different from a person who owns a duplex and rents half and lives in the other half.
FEComment
Disclaimer
Collapse
This message board allows participants to freely exchange ideas and opinions on areas concerning taxes. The comments posted are the opinions of participants and not that of Tax Materials, Inc. We make no claim as to the accuracy of the information and will not be held liable for any damages caused by using such information. Tax Materials, Inc. reserves the right to delete or modify inappropriate postings.
Comment