The parties agreed to treat the property as joint and not community

Report problem with this ad

Jun 19, 2024
4:25:42pm

dratax All-American

The parties agreed to treat the property as joint and not community

when they purchased it as JTWROS. See my post below.

Report problem with this ad

dratax

Bio page: dratax
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Last login: Jun 26, 2024
Total posts: 8,641 (19 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Reporting step up basis on rental property from death of spouse. In California.

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:07pm

It was the full step up when I sold my fathers home in

cougar95

Jun 19, 3:12pm

Had both parents passed at that point or was one still living? If both have died

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:16pm

If CP, full FMV steup on both deaths.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:18pm

My mom is still alive

cougar95

Jun 19, 3:21pm

It's federal, not state.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:17pm

When the first spouse dies the surviving spouse gets a 1/2 step up.

oohYeah

Jun 19, 3:15pm

This is not true if it is CP.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:18pm

If CP, then full fair market value on the date of the spouse's death

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:16pm

That is is my understanding as well. CA is a community property state so

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:19pm

All property is either CP or SP regardless of title.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:28pm

Doesn't the title have to indicate community property or community property with

Jun 19, 3:41pm

No, law presumes CP in most cases. But it helps.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 3:44pm

Are you assuming they bought the property with community property funds?

Jun 19, 3:54pm

RE: Are you assuming they bought the property with community property funds?

Jeremy

Jun 19, 4:14pm

Property was purchased in 1975. Cited law applies to transactions after 1987

dratax

Jun 19, 4:22pm

"Unless the instrument of transfer expressly provides otherwise"

dratax

Jun 19, 4:30pm

2001 CA law: JTWROS= 50% step up and CPWROS=100% step up. JT is not community

dratax

Jun 19, 4:43pm

The property was treated as community property for all intents and

bdizzle

Jun 19, 5:23pm

You seem to have a good understanding of what CA law is right up to the point

dratax

Jun 19, 5:57pm

What document are you referring to? I don't see a document posted besides the

bdizzle

Jun 19, 6:51pm

The document that says the property is held as joint tenants

dratax

Jun 19, 9:18pm

This is wrong.

Jeremy

Jun 20, 10:38pm

I'm just relating what the websites

dratax

Jun 20, 11:49pm

where does it say the law applies to transactions after 1987? It says the

bdizzle

Jun 19, 6:54pm

The parties agreed to treat the property as joint and not community

dratax

Jun 19, 4:25pm

Not really. They paid property taxes on it for almost 50 years

chismoso

Jun 19, 3:18pm

True savings isn't the right word. Although they haven't really paid much

bdizzle

Jun 19, 3:24pm

Not exactly what you think when it’s been taxed off original purchase price.

Jun 19, 5:08pm

<< Deleted >>

BYUMizzou

Jun 19, 3:48pm

Not sure how CA works, but in NV I sold an industrial building for a couple

Gente_Boa

Jun 19, 3:52pm

NV and CA work the same.

Jeremy

Jun 19, 4:14pm

Based on the information provided, 50% step up

dratax

Jun 19, 4:10pm

See the link below from the CA supreme court. The summary says

bdizzle

Jun 19, 7:07pm

I almost stood corrected, then I read the opinion . It says it does not apply to

dratax

Jun 19, 10:28pm

Nice catch! I didn't see that. Maybe because I am hoping the full step up

bdizzle

Jun 19, 11:04pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad