Posted by Carol on June 04, 2000 at 07:22:34:
Glad y’all brought me AND Laure out of the dark ages… but the most interesting part is that the atty was STILL in the dark, and he was being paid for his services as an expert. Gag me.
Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by Laure
Posted by Laure on June 03, 2000 at 06:22:38:
I just bought a house yesterday. The buyers wanted to protect themselves and hired an attorney. No big deal. We were supposed to close 2 weeks ago, but their attorney was playing games with the title search. Said it would take two or three MORE weeks to complete the search ! On Thursday, I called the seller, who desperately needs to close, and tell her. “Listen, if you eyes are bad, you go to an eye doctor. If your teeth are bad, you go to a Dentist. We need a closing, so let’s go to a specialist” My Attorney had the title work done two weeks ago, but Her Attorney wanted to make the fee, and insisted they would handle it. Anyway, she agreed, and we closed yesterday.
The kicker. We are sitting at the closing table, and I say, don’t forget to treat this sale as an “installment sale” on your tax returns next year. He says, oh yes. Then he asks her when she moved? SHE BOUGHT A NEW HOUSE MAY 1998 ! Because of his delays, we closed in June 2000. I say to him, so she loses her preferrential tax treatment for this sale? He nods, the sellers don’t know what we are talking about, and we all go our separate ways.
Am I right? did she lose her ability to roll over the profits to her new home because of 2 days?? And a STUPID Attorney??
Laure 
Re: Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by Rob FL
Posted by Rob FL on June 03, 2000 at 16:08:34:
The rollover rule was scrapped and totally replaced by new tax law in 1997.
Currently married couples don’t have to pay tax on the first 500K (250K for singles) of the gain as long as they lived in the house at least 2 of the last 5 years. It sounds like they could still get the deduction in this case.
Re: Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by B.L.Renfrow
Posted by B.L.Renfrow on June 03, 2000 at 08:48:21:
Laure,
While I don’t disagree with your sentiments about most attorneys, am I missing something here?
Now, I am no tax wiz, but if your seller owned and occupied the property as her primary residence for two out of the last five years, there should be no tax on her gain. The fact that she moved in May 1998 is irrelevant, as long as she meets the 2 out of 5 rule.
Right?
Brian (NY)
Re: Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by Carol
Posted by Carol on June 03, 2000 at 07:21:41:
Laure, she BOUGHT or SOLD a house in May 98? She has 2 yrs after selling to reinvest in a new home (I assume both were her residence)… at least, last time I went through this, that was still the case.
Where has she been since May 98 - the street?
lol
C.
Re: Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by Laure
Posted by Laure on June 03, 2000 at 09:02:26:
I guess that’s what I was asking. When I did this with my previous residence, I missed the 2 year deadline by 2 months and had to pay a tax gain on the sale. TAx laws have apparently changed on that issue.
Laure
Re: Aw Geez… Dumb Attorneys !..wait for the punch line… - Posted by Laure
Posted by Laure on June 03, 2000 at 09:00:13:
She bought a new house in 98. Her previous residence sat on the market until I bought it in June 2000.
Laure
Yep…it DID change - Posted by B.L.Renfrow
Posted by B.L.Renfrow on June 03, 2000 at 09:22:43:
Although I don’t remember exactly when. You are correct…used to be, you did have to purchase a replacement residence within the two year period. Now, as long as you meet the 2 of 5 rule, there’s no tax on the gain, so your seller should be OK as long as it was her primary residence.
Brian