TP sold 2nd home for a loss

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • AZ-Tax
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2008
    • 2604

    #1

    TP sold 2nd home for a loss

    TP sold house they had for 30 years and took advantage of the capital gains exclusion in TY 2013. 2014 they sold their 2nd home for a loss. Never converted this house as a rental but for some reason the title Co. issued the TP a 1099-S. I am not aware of any loss the TP can take on this property but I thought I would post it to see if I am missing something.
  • Gary2
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2010
    • 2066

    #2
    Originally posted by AZ-Tax
    TP sold house they had for 30 years and took advantage of the capital gains exclusion in TY 2013. 2014 they sold their 2nd home for a loss. Never converted this house as a rental but for some reason the title Co. issued the TP a 1099-S. I am not aware of any loss the TP can take on this property but I thought I would post it to see if I am missing something.
    I don't think the rules for issuing the 1099-S have an exception for selling at a loss, only for being able to take the 121 exclusion. Since they clearly couldn't take the 121 exclusion in 2014, my take is that issuing the 1099-S is correct.

    Even if the title company wasn't required to issue it, they did. So now you have to report it as a non-deductible personal loss on the 8949. It wasn't a rental, presumably was never used for business, and it seems unlikely you can argue it was investment property unless they never actually used it.

    Comment

    • AZ-Tax
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2008
      • 2604

      #3
      Correct

      Originally posted by Gary2
      I don't think the rules for issuing the 1099-S have an exception for selling at a loss, only for being able to take the 121 exclusion. Since they clearly couldn't take the 121 exclusion in 2014, my take is that issuing the 1099-S is correct.

      Even if the title company wasn't required to issue it, they did. So now you have to report it as a non-deductible personal loss on the 8949. It wasn't a rental, presumably was never used for business, and it seems unlikely you can argue it was investment property unless they never actually used it.
      Nope never was a rental, never used for any business purpose and they used it personally so no investment property.

      Comment

      Working...