Congress Still May Tax Mortgages to Pay for Highways

The real estate industry and those purchasing or selling residential properties are often the focus/target of politicians looking for a vehicle for passing a law. They don't always get passed, fortunately, so the general public is usually not aware. However, the following bill is still in the works, and is a good example of another attempt to get, in this case homeowners, to pay more money for something which should be funded by the entire public, assuming it is truly needed:

 Back in July the U.S. Senate passed a long-term Transportation funding bill that includes a tax on mortgages to pay for the construction of highways. To make it more palatable to Republican lawmakers, this tax has been disguised as a “fee.” This tax isn’t small potatoes either.

On a median priced home in California ($489,560), homeowners could pay over $8,000 for this tax.

While the Senate has passed its version of the long-term Transportation bill, the House has merely passed a short-term version to keep the federal Transportation Department open. The House plans to pass its own version sometime this fall, but there’s no guarantee that this new tax won’t be included in that version. The California Association of REALTORS® is actively opposing this approach to paying for the highway bill and is encouraging the public to get involved.

People are urged to visit www.nomortgagetax.org and go to the “Take Action” tab to send a personal message to Congress to oppose the tax. The public can also get updates on Facebook at www.facebook.com/no.mortgage.tax or follow the campaign on Twitter™ at @NoMortgTax.

Under current law, a portion of every conforming loan, (those backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) includes a fee used to offset losses from bad loans and to pay for the administrative costs of running these companies. These are called guarantee fees (or g-fees). In 2011 Congress added on an additional.1% increase on the interest rate of every Fannie and Freddie mortgage to fund a six month extension of unemployment benefits. That “add on” was due to expire in 2021 and loans originated after that date would not be subject to the additional fee.

The U.S. Senate’s highway bill extends the “add-on” fee until 2025 for all new mortgages in order to pay for transportation infrastructure. As an example using real numbers, buyers purchasing a median priced home of $489,560 using a typical conforming loan with a 20% down payment will pay an additional $8,100. This figure is sure to rise with an increase in sales prices.

You can contact your representative (go to the website above) to register your opinion on this.

Do You Own Income/Investment Property? Read This about Proposed 1031 Changes

I just received this in my e-mail this morning:

• "There are currently three different proposals that the federal government is weighing, which would significantly alter Section 1031:
•  Former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana), who became U.S. ambassador to China earlier this year, released a draft proposal when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that would potentially eliminate 1031 exchanges. His proposal, which is still before the Senate Finance Committee for discussion, contains other provisions unfavorable to real estate investments, including lengthening depreciation schedules for commercial and residential properties from 39 and 27.5 years, respectively, to 43 years for both and characterizing gains from real estate sales as ordinary income, instead of capital gain.
•  U.S. Rep Dave Camp (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has released a proposed tax bill eliminating all Section 1031 exchanges beginning Jan. 1, 2015.
• President Obama, in his 2015 budget proposal, wants to limit the amount of capital gains deferred in a 1031 exchange to $1 million (indexed for inflation) per taxpayer per taxable year, beginning Jan. 1, 2015." 

As so often happens, legislators propose laws that probably won't accomplish what they intend, in this case, raise tax money.  Property owners benefit greatly from the 1031 tax exchange laws, and should changes occur which prevent or greatly affect the benefits which have been in existence since 1921, many owners just won't make a change.   Sizeable tax consequences can be faced by some investors, so they could very well hold onto their properties rather than sell.

Real estate transactions generate business for many professionals, ancillary businesses and services. The ripple effect from a change in investment and/or commercial sales will impact not only the brokers, but many other job holders, i.e., environmental companies, appraisers, title and escrow personnel, contractors who restore/rehabilitate such properties.

Currently, the company that sent me this email has just exanded their office space on the East Coast because they are currently doing much more business.   But curtailing 1031 exchange activity may curtail many jobs and other economic activity.

"What can you do to help preserve Section 1031 exchanges? Contact your representatives in Congress to express support for Section 1031 in its current form, and the economic activity and job-stimulating aspects of this powerful tax code section."

The California Legislature Considers Tax on Homeowners

 

The state legislature has been considering a tax that would be imposed on homeowners who need to record certain documents with their counties. This $75 per document tax will be imposed on a variety of documents, which will include, for example, documents related to refinancing properties, taking properties in and out of trusts, making lot line adjustments, obtaining constructions loans and upon the death of a spouse.

The tax also applies to foreclosures (the owner would be responsible, not the lender) and filing mechanics liens. For instance, it’s not untypical in a refinance, for six documents to be subject to the new tax, resulting in a tax total of $552. If a spouse dies, up to five documents need to be recorded, creating a total tax of $440 including existing recording fees.

SB 391 is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® is opposing this bill.